It would be a super hacky way to just test, but you can do that with OBS set to capture the game output and then displaying the OBS capture. There's probably multiple other ways, but that would be a quick and easy way to test if you already have OBS installed
This didn’t work out, I crashed my PC somehow trying it with RFactor2 and AC a few times. Sorry to everyone who was curious like me, but in going to continue trying in the future.
What's the advantage for a consumer here though? I honestly don't get the selling point of why I would want Win11 specifically on a handheld. The desktop UI sucks with a touchscreen, so having a windows vs a Linux desktop on the hardware doesn't seem like a difference. I get why MS wants to try to compete here, but I just don't get what they could possibly offer. I don't believe Win11 can be stripped down enough to compete on performance, currently I can't get a machine with 4GB of RAM and a SATA SSD to perform adequately with a web browser in Win11. The OS just consumes huge amounts of resources on stupid background tasks that can't be disabled without registry tweaks and the undefined behavior that comes with that.
The person you're responding to wasn't entirely accurate, as it's not just a regular desktop session with the Xbox app set to auto launch. Early reports (admittedly from Microsoft PR) say the gamepad-centric window manager they're shipping on the Xbox ROG, a replacement for explorer.exe, shaves off 2GB of memory usage specifically because they're disabling desktop-centric services during the session. They do seem to be addressing a lot of your points.
The selling point is compatibility with anti-cheat and Game Pass. These aren't targeted for me, I'm not big into competitive shooters, I prefer a la carte and I main Linux, but I can imagine it would be for a lot of people.
The choice of games is also super strange. Why include borderlands 3? A 2019 cel-shaded release that isn't super demanding seems odd. Homeworld and returnal also seem odd, they're a little more modern but I don't typically see them used as graphical benchmarks. The only game on their list that I typically see for benchmarking is cyberpunk 2077, the rest of the list honestly looks like they did some cherry picking with their selection to massage the data.
It's not a terrible description of what Borderlands complex web of shaders are doing. A base layer part of it is effectively a cell-shader, but Borderlands is doing more other things, too.
Relatedly, cell-shading and other shaders are sometimes very heavy GPU compute workloads (which would also be far more expensive if they needed to run on the CPU due to a bad graphics card or driver). It seems funny to dismiss cell-shading as "not super demanding", when cell-shading was a technical dream or expensive technical demo thing to do for quite a while in the time before modern GPU shaders.
I mean, I keep a physical vintage winXP machine around for games of that vintage because I find they don't tend to play super nice with modern hardware on windows either. I haven't switched my main personal desktop away from win10 yet due to compatibility with my Cad program, but playing games from that vintage was a nightmare IME. I dunno, maybe I'm unlucky with my selection not playing nice, but I found it way easier to just have a decent 2000's vintage PC hooked up with a KVM to my 3rd 1080p monitor for that. Bonus is that, since I'm playing those games for nostalgia anyway, it's better running them under XP anyway. I haven't gone as far as hooking up a CRT, just due to the space. But the second desktop is tucked away under the desk, so the only real downside is having a low red monitor hooked up. No big loss there, the tertiary monitor is mostly for slack and a media player otherwise so it doe3need to be nicer. Just something to consider, since PCs of that vintage aren't that expensive unless you want a high-end example.
In certain competitive environments framerate is definitely limited. Here [0] are the rules for Fallout 4 any% speed runs, framerate must be capped at 60FPS. AFAIK that rule applies to all games in this engine due to physics behavior. I don't follow tournament FPS games, but it wouldn't shock me if there are rules for competitive play there as well.
If you are asking why games like counterstrike don't have limits on online play, that's mostly a commercial question. Would those games be as popular if they limited performance to what was achievable for minimum specs? I certainly wouldn't want to play at 1920x1080 on my nice widescreen monitor, but setting the minimum to a $1500 monitor and the hardware to drive it would guarantee very few players.
How would consoles be any more immune to computer vision based cheating? Instead of feeding the output to a spoofed keyboard & mouse, you'd just be feeding it to a controller input. I'm not really seeing any difference in technical challenge here, and you wouldn't even need esoteric hardware since console controllers are USB devices anyways.
Since the hardware is better controlled and secured, and hardware attestation is a solved problem these days, it's not particularly difficult to enforce security to the point where you'd need to hardware hack a controller and connect it to a physical camera to bot.
That's still gonna be annoying for players, but it'll greatly decrease incidence, and if reporting a player for botting requires buying and hacking a new controller... It should be quite effective.
Keysight now, agilent followed HP's lead and spun off the unprofitable instrumentation division. Almost like expecting what is essentially an R&D division to be as profitable as medical electronics is a mistake. Although they have a good enough core that they've launched 2 successful companies out of that R&D division, which I would argue is where the DNA of the original HP is. So give it 10 years and keysight will be selling off their test equipment division to juice their stock...
Ask a greybeard electrical engineer, at one time they were making the top grade test and measurement equipment. Older HP gear still brings a premium compared to other vendors, but we're talking stuff made before 2000-ish. They absolutely did cutting edge work and built rock solid gear, but that division has been split off twice into different companies. And keysight gear (the current successor) isn't anywhere near as great as the older stuff.
I was going to chime in that I've been really happy with my HP Prime calculator, I purchased it in 2015 when I went back to school mostly because the TI calculators are absolute overpriced garbage and I wanted a calculator that did RPN. I still keep it in my desk drawer and use it several times a week, it has such a genuinely nice interface that I'd rather grab that than use the calculator on my PC. That said, from the wiki link[0] I see they sold that division off to a consulting company in 2022, so I expect that product line will deteriorate.
I'd argue the actual HP that people think fondly of got spun off with the test equipment division, first to agilent and now keysight. They're the folks doing the cutting edge engineering that is the lineage of what HP was.
The current company is probably the worst tech vendor available, I'd rather have whitelabel stuff direct off alibaba than most of their consumer stuff. I split time between sodfware development and IT (small company), so I have people ask me for recommendations on printers. This has happened three times where I recommended a specific model and warned the person that if that wouldn't work to get any other printer besides a HP. Several weeks later, they ask me why their brand new printer isn't working, and when they say they got a HP I tell them the only solution is the landfill. They have engineers specifically working to make the printers and drivers as crappy as possible, normally they're the cheapest option but that doesn't bode well. Meanwhile my brother printer from 2011 is going strong with absolutely no maintenence, and we have a small-office grade brother laser at work that has done 2.5 mil pages with only minimal maintenance (dusting with air, it lives in a warehouse). It's clearly possible to make a consumer grade printer that isn't garbage, but HP hasn't been doing that since at least the mid-2000s.
But there are tons of small businesses that use IT MSPs. That's how it used to be done for companies that aren't large enough for a full-time IT staff member.
Take for example my friend who works in a ~15 person office in a specialty finance field. Most of their software is SaaS, but they still need someone to manage that software. Plus, the eternal struggle of setting up, managing and supporting employee machines means they need IT services, they just use a local firm. Before SaaS, they would likely have a small on-prem server, but they would be hiring the same MSP firm and probably paying roughly the same amount. SaaS software is normally way more expensive, and that cost increase isn't often offset by a greatly reduced consulting fee for many small businesses.
I have a friend that works at an MSP, they have customers who need help setting up and managing a Square POS system. While that is easier to configure that a locally hosted windows based one from 20 years ago, it's still more than many people opening a restaurant are comfortable with. And is the monthly fee cheaper that a one-time purchase and setup fee plus occasional paid upgrades? I'd genuinely be curious to see an accounting breakdown for a restaurant's software & hardware costs now vs 20 years ago. Hardware is certainly cheaper, but I'm not that convinced that it's really much cheaper overall. Square POS is 69/mo + 50/mo/device for the minimum anything beyond a popup or food truck would need [0], and $828/year minimum isn't exactly free, damn near doubled to $1428 if you have a second register. Especially if you also need to hire the same MSP, just at a potentially reduced number of hours per year.
You say before SaaS like you weren't there. As someone that was trust me there is a reason businesses jumped at the chance for SaaS. On-Prem is awful for just about everyone. Even when I was working with very large companies like PwC that had IT departments those departments spent half their time complaining about having to managing the office servers and random installs. Companies didn't just force SaaS to happen, clients moved to companies offering it then the rest of the companies followed.
SquarePOS is free. The monthly fees come from addons which you'd be paying for as multiple separate pieces of software previously. Stuff like Kitchen management/time roll/online ordering/etc. Plus your merchant account costs which if I remember right last time I got an actual merchant account about 15 years ago was $500-1000.
Also the monthly fee is per location not terminal so you've doubled up the fee incorrectly.
