The thrusters are primarily pointed rearward and to the ground. It's not capable of doing much at all for a flat spin, the typical scenario of a car spinning out
Things nobody has said since like 2005? A faster startup is certainly appreciated, but steam's 10 second cold launch time is hardly a big deal. Especially when everyone just leaves it running anyway. There's far more significant aspects like memory usage, game library, and general features.
The client is definetly terrible. Slow to start. I have frikkin 2 different topbars that seemingly have similar options. Way to many locations for settings, spammy store page.
Hard to navigate game library. The fact that the store page often is a better look at the game than the one in the library.
Impossible to see what dlcs that is enabled unless you happen to borrow the game from someone in your family. Why van games corrupt and un and reinstalling is the only fix (verifying does sometimes not catch it).
I could go on. Its still the only store with acceptable linux experience sadly.
I agree the client is pretty scuffed, but I don't understand your problems:
> I have frikkin 2 different topbars that seemingly have similar options.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by "top bars" but my two top sets of menus are "Steam View Friends Help" and "STORE LIBRARY COMMUNITY " which seem quite different.
> The fact that the store page often is a better look at the game than the one in the library.
You can go to the store page from the library! Why would you assume you should re-explain the game to a player? I think reminding you of when you did things in the game makes a lot of sense. I wish it listed playtime and not just achievements.
> Impossible to see what dlcs that is enabled unless you happen to borrow the game from someone in your family.
I do think their DLC display is bad, but it's far from impossible. Properties -> DLC shows you all your DLC and which is enabled. Also clicking on the DLC tab does show you which you own (and all the ones you own will be enabled by default).
Like I said, I think steam has a lot of problems, but I don't understand your complaints at all. I would complain about the awful performance of a webview, the annoying behavior of store pages, the foolishness of the "All" tab on communities that mixes different kinds of content in one place but it will never change because people can't find it otherwise, etc.
"Acceptable" is doing heavy lifting, because if you have a non-us keyboard layout Steam moves heaven and earth to ensure that no matter how hard you work to launch games with US keyboard, they will still use your non-US layout and be broken by default.
> A faster startup is certainly appreciated, but steam's 10 second cold launch time is hardly a big deal.
When I hear about a game on social media I often want to add it to a wishlist on Steam but I dread opening the app because I know it will take forever to open on MacOS.
I don't mind a game launcher taking time, but the store is a part of that which makes it annoying I avoid the native app for that reason.
It’s been a little while since I used Steam but you used to be able to do that from their own website, I think it was store.steampowered.com (I am guessing the website from memory). My game PC wasn’t my main PC so I didn’t even had Steam on that pc and it was what I used to buy the games - don’t really remember if I wishlist too because I use bookmarks in web browsers and folders for the bookmarks.
A launcher is a parasite mostly used to collect stats. Having it take five seconds before you even get to the point of actually starting to load your game is preposterous. Whereas who cares if it takes five seconds for a store to load? At least I play games more often than buy new ones.
The Steam client on macos is the slowest program I've used. I just uninstalled it and use the browser for store/community pages because the steam client is unusable.
I get people hate Epic, but the Steam client is not particularly well made or snappy. And I'd love to see competition kick their asses in to improving it.
I don't have a MacOS comparison point, but steam for me is pretty equivalent to the numbers in the article. ~10 seconds for a cold start, half a second for a warm start. Unless you have a very different definition of "take forever"? What are you seeing on MacOS?
I tested the latest Steam build on MacOS and it took 7 seconds to load on an M4 Max and I had to close a popup when it opened.
In the web world and 7-10 seconds for a pageload is forever. Same with mobile, if you tapped an app icon and it loaded that slow it would never be tolerated.
> In the web world and 7-10 seconds for a pageload is forever.
But a game client is not a web page. You open it once (some people, on boot) and then it's just sitting there. You don't randomly start it from scratch whenever you run a game...
And even if you did, 7-10 seconds waiting for a game to start is not the same as waiting for a page to load. You can wait for the game.
>You open it once (some people, on boot) and then it's just sitting there.
That's what I do. I don't really care how long it takes to start (within reason), since when I boot my computer I rarely start playing a game right away. I check my mail, then look at the news, and after that decide what I want to play. As long as it doesn't take more than five minutes or so, I won't even notice.
"You don't randomly start it from scratch whenever you run a game..." Uh, this is exactly what I do. What's so special about an app that launches apps that it needs to be left warm constantly?
Nothing special. It just sits there doing nothing, like many other programs in my setup. Some people start Steam on boot up.
If you don't, nothing special happens either: you just wait 7-10 seconds, hardly an eternity, and there's really no rush to firing up a videogame either. We're not talking in-game responsiveness, the only thing that truly matters.
m5pro 64gb, 3s to get to the first 'loading window', 5s to get to the store page. But honestly who gives a shit. If you are the average working joe who comes home from work and fires up the pc to play a game, a 5s load of steam is not even a piece of gravel in the road let alone a speed bump. It's not like i'm opening and closing steam 100, 50 or even 5 times a day. It's a useless metric.
> In the web world and 7-10 seconds for a pageload is forever.
Given that its primary purposes are to start video games that take anywhere from five to thirty+ seconds to start and to download video games and their patches which range in size between many hundreds of MBs to a hundred+ GBs, the client taking roughly ten seconds to start is no problem.
Optimize where it makes sense, yanno? I'd much rather have to "deal with" the Steam client taking ten seconds to start than to have to deal with the Epic Games Launcher's download rate being limited to 100->150 mbit/s. [0]
[0] Last I checked on this was a few years ago -like twelve months after Sea Of Thieves stopped being widely popular- so it may have improved. The absurdly slow download speeds [1] are one of the bigger reasons why I stopped using EGS.
[1] Sure, many people don't have connections any faster than that. I do. Steam saturates it, and -at the time- EGS absolutely did not and occupied 100% of one logical CPU while failing to do so.
> It opens to the store page for a reason, not to your library page.
Mine doesn't. Mine even opens in Small Mode. These are configurable settings. If you dislike how they are set, reconfigure them. Have you also not disabled the News Window that pops up on startup? You can turn that off, you know!
> I already addressed in my original comment that I wouldn't care if it was just a game launcher but the Stream app is more than that.
Okay? Do you spend substantially more time using the Steam client to browse the Steam storefront than to play video games? Seriously?
On top of that, will five seconds of additional load time cause you to change your mind about making a purchase? If so, you really weren't interested in the either the thing you were buying or the search for that thing, and it's -very seriously- definitely for the best that you were dissuaded. Valve is making money hand over fist, so the lost sale doesn't matter to them and you get to use that money on something that you're not -at best- aggressively tepid about.
A modern computer runs circles around your 90s computer... if the code was the same, it should be crazy fast. Instead, everything is a web browser, and each of them need to load 1gb of junk into memory each time you click on them.
Startup is one thing, using the program is another. Steamwebhelper, the chromium based tool that renders everything web based in the client is awfully optimized and likes to noticeably utilize the CPU even when minimized on the tray, yet somehow always serves me with a blank page whenever I go store, community etc. on first try, I have to click the label multiple times to get anything. You can't even kill the process, because it's immediately relaunched, I just wish there was an option to disable it and only get the library.
I definitely don't leave the Steam launcher running all the time, on macOS it takes up a non-trivial amount of memory that I want to have available for other apps. I launch Steam when I want to play some games, then quit it when I want to do other stuff.
the steam client is definitely kind of terrible, maybe i’m just biased because i have used steam deck since launch which uses big picture, but there have been bugs in the client that were extremely annoying and obvious that took years to fix (for example, closing a store page and losing page position, but then the page would scroll up when pressing down on a controller for years).
A very obvious non-deck example is how bad it can be at loading and showing videos on the store page. They consistently have issues with smooth playback, this is not my network, others i know have the same issue. it’s to the point that I scroll down and look at gifs in the description for gameplay footage first. I use the discovery queue often and it’s pretty apparent.
When I browse the store, I specifically do it in a browser because the client is so unpleasant to use. For launching games I have no choice. I love Steam as a concept and company, but it is not an enjoyable app to use by its own merits, in my opinion.
just last night I was playing a game on steam, and at a seemingly random point in gameplay (it was Death Stranding, I was just pressing forward like always), every single button on my controller spontaneously remapped to a different button. Turns out my steam input profile had just spontaneously been completely randomized?
All this to say: steam is better than the alternatives, but still has some objectively insane problems.
it changed from a small, fast native client to webshit quite a few years ago. the performance is acceptable now but it is indeed magnitudes slower. it also steals focus several times during startup which is the single greatest thing a developer of client software can do to be a shithead
I said it back when they first migrated to Electron, and I'll say it again now. It's not the slowest thing ever by modern standards, but it's definitely not fast, either, and is pretty bloated in terms of memory usage.
It only looks good if you compare it to the Epic client, which somehow manages to be much worse.
I definitely don’t leave the resource hog Steam running, because it can be slow and terrible. I turned off Steam Overlay and Notifications to get substantial speed up improvements.
> as long as password-based login remains as an option.
which they have to be, right? since passkeys are "temporary" in that they are easily lost/destroyed/temporarily unavailable, and sites are supposed to support multiple of them?
The appeal of the Shield Pro is you don't have to deal with custom flashing a "no-name" device and you don't have to dual box to keep streaming services happy.
It's frustrating that nobody else seems to care about attempting to be the all-in-one box given how much Shield is showing its age now. It's really sluggish
I don't get why Apple just refuses to allow audio pass through or DV Profile 7. They're clearly on board with DV in general and don't hesitate to play Dolby's branding games, so why not profile 7 support???
> The appeal of the Shield Pro is you don't have to deal with custom flashing a "no-name" device and you don't have to dual box to keep streaming services happy.
Fair, but I just wasn't willing to put up with Android TV. And the Shield doesn't handle FEL so there's still some ripped content it won't play.
For me it's easy enough to use my Apple TV for streaming and even most ripped blu-rays, and the Ugoos for the blu-ray rips that benefit from it. Flashing the AMB6+ was a one-time thing. After that, updating the OS is just dropping a tar file into a folder and rebooting it.
> It's frustrating that nobody else seems to care about attempting to be the all-in-one box given how much Shield is showing its age now.
It's a niche market and any all-in-one box is likely to run afoul of Dolby Labs licensing restrictions.
> I don't get why Apple just refuses to allow audio pass through or DV Profile 7.
I don't even care about pass through audio if it could just use Dolby MAT to playback decoded DTS:X / Dolby TrueHD Atmos w/o losing the spatial channels.
DV Profile 7 is very likely Dolby licensing issues.
> Fair, but I just wasn't willing to put up with Android TV.
When I bought my Shield TV's I actually liked Android TV. Very nearly every update since then has just slowly made it worse and worse.
Now it's absolutely disgusting as it shows straight up advertisements (not "recommended shows", like literally ads for car insurance or whatever).
So I guess there's really just not much to choose between regardless. It's spyware + adware regardless of price vs. Apple's lack of local backup support :/
Oh I learned it the hard way when my device failed and I I had to replace it and log in and configure each and every app from the start. Half a day gone.
It wouldn't surprise me if there's pressure from Dolby or the media companies to not do so, since Profile 7 is only used on BluRay (and the primary use case for playing back BluRays on Apple TVs I'm pretty sure is not playing backed-up personally-owned media). And, I'm sure Apple isn't losing many sales to not supporting it.
Lack of pass-through could probably be argued the same way, although it is a bit more surprising.
Yes, it's important to distinguish annoyances of the codec from annoyances of the ecosystem.
Ecosystem being slow to adopt it is something that can be fixed or improved, but also more importantly (given jpegxl & avif comparisons) are things that will impact any new image format.
Meanwhile annoyances of the codec tend to be things that are dramatically harder to deal with. Like HEIC being a license minefield and also slow as shit. Or that many of these newer image codecs do not have ways to work with them in a memory efficient manner like jpeg does (see eg libjpeg-turbo's sample size & skip scanline options). Or WebP insisted on being in a RIFF container for... uh... absolutely no fucking reason whatsoever afaict. Fortunately RIFF is so trivial that this overhead doesn't actually matter in practice, but then HEIC & AVIF dials up the annoying container bullshit to 11 thanks to their video heritage with ISOBMFF
It seems much harder to get an audience as someone complaining about technical details of codecs and their implementations, than as someone complaining about the formats (which in practical terms is always going to mean the ecosystem, or really, how broad the support base is or what the user has to do in order to deal with it).
Perhaps it's a matter of who hits the pain point? Ugly specs make annoyed devs, licensing problems make distributors unhappy, and ecosystem issues leave users unimpressed. (With some spillover between categories, of course.)
RIFF is so trivial and has such useful properties that I've done several application-specific binary formats that are RIFF with a different start atom.
RIFF itself is fine, but in the context of webp it's pointless. WebP doesn't make any use of being in a riff container. Like it still internally has its own chunk system anyway. So you end up with a single RIFF chunk for the webp file that itself then can contain multiple, non-RIFF chunks
The current WebP Spec RFC9649 defines the format as effectively:
A 'RIFF' chunk containing formtype 'WEBP' and a mandatory 'VP8 ' or 'VP8L' chunk, and optional 'VP8X', 'ICCP','ANIM', 'ANMF', 'EXIF', 'XMP ' chunks and possibly some unknown chunks, where if any of these optional chunks appear 'VP8X' must be first, and with certain ordering restrictions on the chunks.
It is true that earlier spec versions only allowed the core 'VP8 ' or 'VP8L' chunk, and the spec does warn that some older software might not support files with the newer chunks, so they should only be used if really needed for best compatibility.
HEVC intra is definitely not 10-20x slower than decoding VP8 intra, so something is way off with your numbers. That's on the order of comparing HM at -O0 against an actual VP8 decoder.
well that depends on the size of the image. But a modern cell phone is shooting 50mp+, and at that size you're talking 50-200ms for a jpeg vs. a couple seconds for HEIC. Which is borderline instant-feeling vs. extremely not instant.
FWIW there's nothing about the addresses themselves that stops you subdividing a /64, but it depends on your router.
You could put your server at x::1 and static-route that address as a /128 on your router, if it supports it. The reverse route might be a bit tricky but putting ::0 on the router and telling the server it's a /127 should work. Anything outside of the /127 (so, all the randomly generated addresses on your home network) would go back through the router.
Now if that /64 is also changing every day, then it's a problem and idk what you'd do.
> Needing the kernel to be changed for each device is an Androidism
It's an Armish not an Androidism. It's an embedded legacy that really doesn't make sense anymore. But inertia is powerful enough that even Apple is still using device trees, even on their M series SoCs ( https://asahilinux.org/docs/fw/adt/ )
I wouldn't call it legacy as that implies something people inherited but didn't want. The common sentiment among kernel developers has always seemed to be that device trees are nicer to work with than the complicated PC abstractions, and that sentiment remains today. And IIRC Linux didn't always have device trees; it was an approach that came later as it was ported beyond x86, Alpha, and SPARC, and was welcomed.
I'm not a kernel developer, but it seems to be one of those things that's great when you're adding support for a particular device on a particular platform, but becomes a giant PITA in the aggregate for the downstream ecosystem. It's a mismatch of incentives and preferences.
Zig and Rust are equivalently "low level". Zig isn't any closer to the hardware than Rust is.
> but I believe its advantage over Rust for that specific application is that you have tighter control over exactly when memory is allocated and deallocated, and how data is laid out in it.
Rust gives you all this, too.
Zig's primary (possibly only) advantage over Rust is that it has much faster compilation times.
Comptime is a big one too. You can achieve similar things in Rust with generics and macros, but comptime makes certain things easier (and other things harder).
reply