Steam is running on Windows 7 again, thanks to a fan-made backport

[Alfonso Maruccia]

In context: Despite being released many moons ago, Windows 7 continues to be remembered fondly by millions of users. In fact, some people are still using the old operating system for gaming tasks. Now, they can even run Steam on it. Again.

Valve ended official support for Windows 7 and Windows 8.x in the Steam client just a year ago, forcing gamers clinging to those aging operating systems to upgrade to Windows 10 or Windows 11. Now, a developer has backported a recent Steam release to the older OS, though you'll still need to install some crucial updates to actually run the client.

Developer "Eazy Black" recently backported the Steam beta client released on December 4, 2025, adding full compatibility with both older Windows versions. The modified client is available on the developer's website, with separate downloads for each OS. To get the smoothest experience – and, realistically, to get Steam working at all – you'll want the system fully updated.

A discussion on X notes that the modded client can even run on an early build of Windows 7 if you install a specific set of official patches: Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (KB976932), KB2999226, and either KB3080149 or KB4474419. Those last two are especially important, as they add SHA-2 code-signing support to Windows 7.

Windows 7 was one of Microsoft's best-selling operating systems, helping many users forget how messy Vista turned out to be. Windows 8, on the other hand, pushed dramatic interface changes and earned a far more mixed reaction. Mainstream support for Windows 7 ended a decade ago, and the extended (paid) support program wrapped in 2023.

Steam Beta client (December 4th, 2025 build) has been unofficially backported to work on Windows 7 SP1 x64 and Windows 8.x x64, thanks to EAZY BLACK!

⚠️ MUST FULLY UPDATE WINDOWS!

Download for Windows 7: https://t.co/nG292FnaXj

Download for Windows 8.x: https://t.co/eklYmfR3sg pic.twitter.com/VVqcKyikz7

– BobPony.com (@TheBobPony) December 9, 2025

Yet even as an effectively abandoned platform, Windows 7 still accounts for more than 2% of the entire Windows user base, according to recent estimates. Community projects like VxKex are dedicated to "restoring" compatibility between modern applications and the old system.

Windows 7 fans have already managed to keep Steam alive through various workarounds, but having a current Steam build running directly on the OS could prove especially useful for people with older hardware.

Gamers are typically quick to abandon outdated systems in favor of newer editions, and the now-unsupported Windows 10 is likely to slip off Steam's most-used platforms list sooner rather than later. Still, Windows 10 and Windows 11 share a common codebase and application platform, meaning broad software support for Windows 10 could stick around for years.

Permalink to story:

Steam is running on Windows 7 again, thanks to a fan-made backport

 

[noel24]

You all children forgot by now, but that was the greatest OS of all times from M$. More demanding than XP, but solved lot of Its problems, why still being a vanilla OS - Operating System.
Not a "service".

 

[Vanderlinde]

You all children forgot by now, but that was the greatest OS of all times from M$. More demanding than XP, but solved lot of Its problems, why still being a vanilla OS - Operating System.
Not a "service".

Your right.

And I think if linux comes with a serious alternative, like one plug and play and where users can find their way easily into without bashing command lines and all that,

MS could finally be obsolete as a OS.

 

[yannus]

Your right.

And I think if linux comes with a serious alternative, like one plug and play and where users can find their way easily into without bashing command lines and all that,

MS could finally be obsolete as a OS.

It's already the case, try MXlinux and you'll see by yourself. In many cases it works better out of the box than Windoze.

 

[Rapob]

You all children forgot by now, but that was the greatest OS of all times from M$. More demanding than XP, but solved lot of Its problems, why still being a vanilla OS - Operating System.
Not a "service".

Feels like Windows 2000 and XP with SP1+ was just as good as 7.

10 and 11 can both be very good when optimized and slimmed down, which is fairly easy to do.

People that don't know how to do stuff like this, should not complain really. You just sound old. There's plenty of ways to improve any Windows version.

I tweak my OS, always. Regardless of running Windows, MacOS og Linux. I do it all. No OS is perfect out of the box, or even close.

 

[Rapob]

It's already the case, try MXlinux and you'll see by yourself. In many cases it works better out of the box than Windoze.

For regular users, absolutely not. Linux still lacks tons of native app support, hence the extremely low marketshare. No casual PC users are going to use Linux unless they know a guy. MacOS is the biggest true alternative to Windows with like 10 times the marketshare of Linux, yet still nothing compared to Windows 90% marketshare or so.

Linux is gold, for servers.
Desktop usage, mediocre still, for the most part.

Used Linux for 25+ years. Worked with Unix/Linu servers for 10+
Installed Arch from scratch. Used 100+ distros. So yeah, I know about Linux. Using Linux on my homeserver and 2 laptops as well. On my high-end gaming PC? No way.

Linux is very far from being a threat to Windows. Windows is not perfect but Linux sure is not perfect either (unless for servers, where it is close).

Linux for desktop usage is a fragmented mess for the most part.

Valve focussing on Linux, mostly Arch, with Steam OS, is good for Linux tho. Proton awesome and improving year for year. In 5-10 years, Linux might become a true alternative to Windows, even for gamers. We will see. Still tons of work to do, anti cheat being the biggest obstacle to overcome, and every Linux user who actually tried gaming on it, knows this.

And this is why Windows is listed in game requirements.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

Feels like Windows 2000 and XP with SP1+ was just as good as 7.

W2K ... had issues. A lot of them. May be it was just "not so ordinary" rig of mine (Dual Slot-1, SCSI, RAID, SC-RW, scaner, TV capturing card, 2 monitors, USB devices, ...).
Red Hat Linux worked fine on it. Gamming included (Baldurs Gate I and II).

Win XP .. SP2+ (Did not have it sooner than that). Used it 2006~2016 without need to reinstall.
Just had to install SP3 due some SW which required it.

I tweak my OS, always. Regardless of running Windows, MacOS og Linux. I do it all. No OS is perfect out of the box, or even close.

I (mostly) do not need to tweak OS. Just do some user level settings.
And in microsoft they decided to make it harder and harder with every "upgrade".

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

And I think if linux comes with a serious alternative, like one plug and play and where users can find their way easily into without bashing command lines and all that.

1) You do not have to use command line in Linux, but you can.
2) To do some serious thing in Windows, you have to use command line too.

Windows could be much lighter (and faster, more stable, more reliable, less annoying, ...) if used to just launch games. But is not.

 

[Rapob]

W2K ... had issues. A lot of them. May be it was just "not so ordinary" rig of mine (Dual Slot-1, SCSI, RAID, SC-RW, scaner, TV capturing card, 2 monitors, USB devices, ...).
Red Hat Linux worked fine on it. Gamming included (Baldurs Gate I and II).

Win XP .. SP2+ (Did not have it sooner than that). Used it 2006~2016 without need to reinstall.
Just had to install SP3 due some SW which required it.


I (mostly) do not need to tweak OS. Just do some user level settings.
And in microsoft they decided to make it harder and harder with every "upgrade".

My Windows 2000 install, had little to no issues. Worked flawlessly and rock solid. Sounds more like hardware issue or bad drivers on your side.

Windows ME was the crap version at this time. 2000 was far better.

This is the reason Windows 7 was based on NT kernel as well, just like Windows 2000.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

My Windows 2000 install, had little to no issues. Worked flawlessly and rock solid. Sounds more like hardware issue or bad drivers on your side.

Sorry. No HW issues.
Just lack of support for server grade HW.
NT 4.0 worked but not supported some new features.
Red Hat Linux could run all the HW appropriately. No need to use buggy W2K.

Windows ME was the crap version at this time. 2000 was far better.

BTW ... used Win ME on cheap rig for my baby sister. Did the work.

This is the reason Windows 7 was based on NT kernel as well, just like Windows 2000.

DOS based: Windows 1.0, 2.0. 3.0, 3.1, Win for Groupworks, 95, 98, ME
NT based: NT 3.5, NT 4.0, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10, 11

 

[yannus]

For regular users, absolutely not. Linux still lacks tons of native app support, hence the extremely low marketshare. No casual PC users are going to use Linux unless they know a guy. MacOS is the biggest true alternative to Windows with like 10 times the marketshare of Linux, yet still nothing compared to Windows 90% marketshare or so.

Linux is gold, for servers.
Desktop usage, mediocre still, for the most part.

Used Linux for 25+ years. Worked with Unix/Linu servers for 10+
Installed Arch from scratch. Used 100+ distros. So yeah, I know about Linux. Using Linux on my homeserver and 2 laptops as well. On my high-end gaming PC? No way.

Linux is very far from being a threat to Windows. Windows is not perfect but Linux sure is not perfect either (unless for servers, where it is close).

Linux for desktop usage is a fragmented mess for the most part.

Valve focussing on Linux, mostly Arch, with Steam OS, is good for Linux tho. Proton awesome and improving year for year. In 5-10 years, Linux might become a true alternative to Windows, even for gamers. We will see. Still tons of work to do, anti cheat being the biggest obstacle to overcome, and every Linux user who actually tried gaming on it, knows this.

And this is why Windows is listed in game requirements.

Gamernexus is starting to look at Linux, not Macos. All the gaming focused reviewers are talking about Linux these days. I'm an ex windows user and couldn't be happier with Linux. Windows has become a nightmare. Frustration for beginners and advanced users. In the company where I work, they just switched a bunch of PCs to linux because windoze was literally making them obsolete. Any laptop with 4gigs is unusable on windoze but works fine on a Linux xfce distro.

 

[Rapob]

Sorry. No HW issues.
Just lack of support for server grade HW.
NT 4.0 worked but not supported some new features.
Red Hat Linux could run all the HW appropriately. No need to use buggy W2K.


BTW ... used Win ME on cheap rig for my baby sister. Did the work.


DOS based: Windows 1.0, 2.0. 3.0, 3.1, Win for Groupworks, 95, 98, ME
NT based: NT 3.5, NT 4.0, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10, 11

Windows ME used the Win9x kernel and sucked massively, known for crashing left and right. It is one of the worst operating systems Microsoft has ever released. Probably the worst.

Windows 2000 was solid as a rock for me and people flocked to 2000 after ME was garbage, before XP took over.

Windows ME was a disaster for Microsoft and this is a fact. Simply search the web.

Windows 7, one of Microsofts most popular versions ever, built further on Windows 2000's succes. Using the NT kernel.

Windows ME was nothing but an open beta, before they moved on to 2000 and XP.
ME was a huge failure for Microsoft and more like a test. People did not like it, and Microsoft left ME in the ditch faster than any other version. Widely known for being Microsofts worst version of Windows ever. Extremely unstable, driver and hardware problems, poor performance in general.

The fact you think Windows ME was good, is worrying.

 

[Rapob]

Gamernexus is starting to look at Linux, not Macos. All the gaming focused reviewers are talking about Linux these days. I'm an ex windows user and couldn't be happier with Linux. Windows has become a nightmare. Frustration for beginners and advanced users. In the company where I work, they just switched a bunch of PCs to linux because windoze was literally making them obsolete. Any laptop with 4gigs is unusable on windoze but works fine on a Linux xfce distro.

I have used Linux for like 25 years, for what Linux is good for, servers mostly.

The only reason some people look at Linux gaming right now is because of views and the fact that Valve wants Linux gaming to get better, Steam OS 3 with Arch base and Proton/WINE progress is good to see but there is still a LONG WAY.
Linux is still a joke compared to Windows for gaming and Linux is overall not even close to matching Windows in terms of gaming performance.

It is a fact that Linux loses to Windows in terms of performance in games overall, when you just don't cherrypick a single game. Anti cheat keeps being a huge problem for Linux gaming, so essentially, no demanding gamers are going to switch anytime soon. That is reality for you, and the reason why Linux has a miniscule marketshare, for gaming especially, it makes no sense.

The few multiplayer games that work on Linux, have NONE WORKING anti cheat software, like CS 2. Very easy to cheat in this game, with code injection. And this is the reason CS 2 multiplayer works on Linux in this game (yet no good CS 2 players actually use Linux).
Serious CS 2 players, use custom servers with real life ID attached to their user, for perma ban and identification. This is how "serious and pro" players train when they are not at actual events. They don't use regular FFA servers, riddled with cheaters. And they use Windows 100% of the time, for maximum performance and proper sensivitiy settings.

Casual gamers playing single player only don't know the issues that affects Linux it seems. Even Valve acknowledged that anti cheat is the single biggest barrier and a huge obstacle for Linux. No-one cares about Linux for gaming if multiplayer is not working in most games. Hard reality for you.

Casual gamers, using old hardware, playing old games, in single player only, might be fine with Linux for gaming. Linux has worked "fine" for gaming like this for years. It is called having low demands. This is maybe a few percent of the Steam community. Meanwhile 95% of Steam users use Windows. Steam has 2%, MacOS has 3%

And atleast 1% of the Steam base, is because of Steam Deck which run Linux out of the box. Not because people actually install Linux on their gaming PCs and have been running Steam for years in Linux.

I have contributed for sure to those 2% Linux marketshare too. As I have Steam installed on both my Linux laptops.

No-one is going to buy or build a high-end gaming machine and then install Linux. That is reality for you and if you truly think otherwise, you have zero experience with high-end hardware and newer games for sure. It would be pointless and you might as well shoot yourself in the foot to begin with.

 

[yannus]

I have used Linux for like 25 years, for what Linux is good for, servers mostly.

Possibly you haven't used Linux in the recent years.
Linux is amazing for servers, supercomputers, anything that needs security, everyday use (yes surfing is quite painful on windoze) and so much more. Gaming mostly struggles with anticheat (which affects very few games), but it won't be long before it's solved. Some gamers prefer sacrificing a game than having to bear with windoze.

About high end hardware, of course windoze comes first in terms of drivers, but don't be fooled, things change very fast. AMD drivers are in the Linux kernel and ngreedya is slowly adapting. I even know a guy who decided to buy AMD instead of ngreedya just to optimize his Linux experience.

Inertia is real and plays in favor of windoze, but look at what happened to intel because they thought that inertia was everything. Now the same is happening for windoze, and Linux is gaining momentum.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

Windows ME used the Win9x kernel and sucked massively, known for crashing left and right. It is one of the worst operating systems Microsoft has ever released. Probably the worst.

Easier to take down than NT kernel? Sure.
Crashing left and right?
It used the same (lightly enhanced) core as Win 95 and Win 98.
Together with apps not designed to share access to HW.
Add old and/or cheap HW to mix and you will get a recipe for disaster.

Windows 2000 was solid as a rock for me and people flocked to 2000 after ME was garbage, before XP took over.

Those who used Windows NT did not have reason to use Win ME.
Those who used Windows 98 did not have reason to use Win ME.
Those who used Windows 95 could get some benefit using Win ME, but their HW was mostly not good enough.
With new, not trash grade, HW it worked. Except some error generator between keyboard and chair.

Windows 7, one of Microsofts most popular versions ever, built further on Windows 2000's succes.

Windws 7 was evolution of Vista.
Something you forget to mention. May be because it was one of less popular editions.

Windows ME was nothing but an open beta, before they moved on to 2000 and XP.

This a way how to say you know nothing without saying you know nothing.

The fact you think Windows ME was good, is worrying.

Good enough.
Better than its predecessor Win 95 which steamrolled OS/2.
That is the power of marketing force.

 

[Vanderlinde]

Windows ME used the Win9x kernel and sucked massively, known for crashing left and right. It is one of the worst operating systems Microsoft has ever released. Probably the worst.

Windows 2000 was solid as a rock for me and people flocked to 2000 after ME was garbage, before XP took over.

Windows ME was a disaster for Microsoft and this is a fact. Simply search the web.

Windows 7, one of Microsofts most popular versions ever, built further on Windows 2000's succes. Using the NT kernel.

Windows ME was nothing but an open beta, before they moved on to 2000 and XP.
ME was a huge failure for Microsoft and more like a test. People did not like it, and Microsoft left ME in the ditch faster than any other version. Widely known for being Microsofts worst version of Windows ever. Extremely unstable, driver and hardware problems, poor performance in general.

The fact you think Windows ME was good, is worrying.

I have used ME for approx 2+ years at least, on my older Pentium 4 and AMD XP if my memory serves me right. ME offered in regards of gaming performance "better" then XP or 2000. It was more of a light-weight OS or a jump in between 98 or higher. With a patch it still had a real DOS box where you could natively run dos applications into. No it did not crash the way you where presenting it.

There was nothing wrong with the OS if you where gaming minded. It worked. It was not designed to be left on 24/7 as with my W10 installation is now.

I do agree W7 was ultimately the finest MS did produce, but from that point on it was going downhill.

 

[candle86]

Windows ME used the Win9x kernel and sucked massively, known for crashing left and right. It is one of the worst operating systems Microsoft has ever released. Probably the worst.

Windows 2000 was solid as a rock for me and people flocked to 2000 after ME was garbage, before XP took over.

Windows ME was a disaster for Microsoft and this is a fact. Simply search the web.

Windows 7, one of Microsofts most popular versions ever, built further on Windows 2000's succes. Using the NT kernel.

Windows ME was nothing but an open beta, before they moved on to 2000 and XP.
ME was a huge failure for Microsoft and more like a test. People did not like it, and Microsoft left ME in the ditch faster than any other version. Widely known for being Microsofts worst version of Windows ever. Extremely unstable, driver and hardware problems, poor performance in general.

The fact you think Windows ME was good, is worrying.

Me is good, the issue with me was that no one was ready for it. On a new OEM system it was more stable than 98, the issue is on an upgrade with older devices it used VXad drivers which where always the issue in 95 and 98 but more so in me. Use wdm drivers in ME and it's rock solid.

 

[Rapob]

Windows ME was prone for crashing, simply search the web. 1000s of threads and even arcticles about how bad ME was. Worst MS OS ever released, worst adaptation rate ever. The fact you think otherwise tells you you have no clue. Even Microsoft abandoned it fast.

 

[Rapob]

Possibly you haven't used Linux in the recent years.
Linux is amazing for servers, supercomputers, anything that needs security, everyday use (yes surfing is quite painful on windoze) and so much more. Gaming mostly struggles with anticheat (which affects very few games), but it won't be long before it's solved. Some gamers prefer sacrificing a game than having to bear with windoze.

About high end hardware, of course windoze comes first in terms of drivers, but don't be fooled, things change very fast. AMD drivers are in the Linux kernel and ngreedya is slowly adapting. I even know a guy who decided to buy AMD instead of ngreedya just to optimize his Linux experience.

Inertia is real and plays in favor of windoze, but look at what happened to intel because they thought that inertia was everything. Now the same is happening for windoze, and Linux is gaining momentum.

I have Linux running on my home server and 2 laptops. Managing Linux clusters at work on the daily and with 10+ years of experience here. Please stop the BS. Debian and Arch base. Only distros that matter these days. All other distros are slowly lagging behind, loosing momentum.

Anti Cheat problem won't be solved fast or anytime soon. Even Valve says it is the biggest opstacle and won't be easy / will take years and years to improve. If Linux stays at sub 1% gaming marketshare, developers simply won't bother. Game developers release ACTUAL GAME REQUIRES, try and read them. Says Windows is required, wonder why? They don't care at all about supporting Linux. Linux is way too fragmented for developers to care and support would be hell.

Linux is gaining sure, but very slowly and it is still extremely niche (especially for gaming) and pretty much no serious gamers uses it, due to incompatibility, bad performance overall and issues with all kinds of stuff, anti cheat especially.

Let me guess, you are a casual gamer playing single player only or mostly. Like most people that claim Linux is good for gaming.

Come again when you have tried gaming with 100s of fps, on 240+ Hz OLED and you will see what I mean. Actual demanding gamers don't install Linux for this reason.
Linux gaming is niche and mostly for casuals. Steam Deck, the reason Linux marketshare went up in Steam Survey, is a low-end machine made for running old games mostly, indies etc. No comparison at all with a high-end gaming PC.

Linux is laughable for high fps gaming. Which is why no serious or pro gamers use it. They won't touch it with a 10 feet pole.

Most "Linux gamers", thinks it is good for gaming because the game just start up. That is the only requirement. Laughable. 30 or 60 fps, they won't care much. "The Game Works" ... People don't buy high-end gaming hardware to play games with bad performance, enjoy a limited number of games / or get no multiplayer access. That is reality for you. 99.99% of demanding gamers, won't touch Linux for their dedicated gaming PCs and neither would I, with a 9800X3D + 4090 + 240 Hz WOLED + 500 Hz QD-OLED. I enjoy games on Windows with 200+ and ~500 fps depending on monitor, with minimum 1%s in the 100s or 200s range, or even higher - Everything is tweaked to perfection on a custom Windows 11 install with limited processes running. No Linux distro would give me better performance in games overall and my system is rock solid, not forcing updates on me, because I actually set up GPO's to delay updates, tweak further. Works flawlessly and no Linux distro could replace it for now.

Funny how many became "Linux experts" recently and calls Linux awesome for gaming, just because it has improved slightly, because of Proton dev, the main problems with Linux gaming are still present and have not improved at all.

Linux has working for gaming for years and years. This is nothing new. The only problem, is that Windows is overall still much better, with full support from game developers and hardware manufacturers meaning "GAMES JUST WORK" which is what most gamers want.

All data shows Linux is still extremely niche and performance is hit or miss, most often worse than Windows in both min, max and avg fps. Multiplayer games is pretty much a no-go in most cases (unless Valve, with CS 2 that skimps on anti cheat to make it work under Linux, result = tons of cheaters, code injection is insanely easy in CS 2).

Good luck running newer shooters under Linux in Multiplayer. Shooters that actually block most cheaters and HW/perma ban cheaters when caught. Feel free to try. I am waiting. Go play BF6 for example, one of the best BF games in years and one of the best and most popular shooters right now. Not working in Linux at all. FOMO casuals like you, will say the game is bad and just don't play it. Sure, FOMO at its finest. Just proof that Linux is not viable for demanding gamers, buying high-end hardware, wanting to play all new games.

As long as Linux is that limited, and won't play every single Windows game, single player AND multiplayer, with same performance or better, Linux gaming won't take off. Casuals might enjoy Linux gaming, demanding gamers won't.

Would I want Linux to be viable for gaming? Yes. Arch base is the future for Linux gaming, which is why Valve changed to Arch in SteamOS v3 ... Rolling updates is the way to go for gaming.

Is Linux viable for gaming? Not really. Unless you are a casual gamer. Or plays just a single game that happen to work in Linux, while not caring for new games.

People calling Windows for Windoze typically have no clue. Not with Windows (tweaking and optimizing properly for max performance) and not with Linux either. They typically install an easy to use distro and think they are hardcore Linux users. Installing Steam, plays a few old games and now they go "LINUX IS GUUUD FOR GAMING!!11" and Windozeeee is slooow.

Linux is a joke for gaming still, hence the extremely low marketshare. That is reality for you. Will Linux gaming improve? Hopefully, but there is a loooong way to go. Especially for people who don't settle with mediocre performance and won't accept a limited game catalog.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

No Linux distro would give me better performance in games

It happened before.
It happens now
It will happen again.
You can not deny that only because its out of range of you 10 years experience.

Linux has working for gaming for years and years. This is nothing new. The only problem, is that Windows is overall still much better, with full support from game developers and hardware manufacturers meaning "GAMES JUST WORK" which is what most gamers want.

Good old times when SW worked "Out of Box"
Day Zero patches of size up to 80% of SW are more common than not.

Multiplayer games is pretty much a no-go in most cases (unless Valve, with CS 2 that skimps on anti cheat to make it work under Linux, result = tons of cheaters, code injection is insanely easy in CS 2).

Teams making games and anticheats are showing their incompetence.
Not able to come with working solutions. Just annoying paying customers (both game publishers and players).

Good luck running newer shooters under Linux in Multiplayer. Shooters that actually block most cheaters and HW/perma ban cheaters when caught. Feel free to try.

I cry nice.
But on wrong tombstone.
Why cheap-anti tools are not made for Linux and other OS is
- decision of publisher
- incompetence of cheap-anti provider
- both

Windozeeee is slooow.

Sure.
By Design.

 

[Rapob]

Sorry but no, I for one lived it and for two currently run it on 3 retro computers, and so does a whole bunch of guys in the retro community, ME was only bad when you did an inplace upgrade or you tried to use your old drivers. The fact you don't understand that shows a simple fact you have zero clue, maybe don't talk about something you have no knowledge of outside of internet meme culture

ME was bad no matter what you did. Garbage OS and Microsofts worst of all time, which is a fact. Retro community. Hahahaha. FYI, you don't have to use dated garbage OS to play old games.

ME = Mistake Edition

Drivers sucked and continued to suck due to NT focus from XP and forward.

9x kernel was and is absolute crap and Mistake Edition was the last Windows to ever use this garbage kernel. Microsoft threw it in the trash bin after XP release, for good reason.

 

[Melkor Unlimited]

I may have more experience with Linux and gaming on Linux than your Life experience total.
So, please leave all FOMO bul.s.hit.

You just confirmed you know nothing about new games and new hardware.

Another way of saying you know nothing.

Another "Linux gamer" using old dated ha

Sure. I am using old HW.
May last piece is less than week old.
Is that old enough for you?

while Linux has a >1% marketshare.

1) How do you measure marketshare of something what is not selling at market?
2) Its more than 1%. Already for yars. You just have not noticed.

 

[Child Lover]

Not for 32-bit Windows 7, so sad