Maybe, but more because they are less likely to be the type of person fooled by a fake website. Not because they didn't run JavaScript. And if you are not able to get OS, browser, or CPU microcode updates that's a problem weather you execute JavaScript or not.

I knew it was coming but still it's very disappointing. Now they better go all in on Linux and deck out that compatibility before the client breaks on 7. #FckDRM GOG please fix Galaxy 2 tho and do not remove it from Windows 7.

It's hilarious to read this on a forum for a storefront previously known as "Good Old Games"

The good news here is that, according to the current Steam stats, this makes for some two million people who may suddenly realize what's wrong with clients, and DRM in general...

An OS is just a tool. not the ultimate purpose of things

Sorta true... and? Would you rather use a tool that works or one that constantly requires adjustments so that it won't send your personal data to the said tool's manufacturer? Or that it's use has been hampered by bizzare decisions to "simplifiy" it's usage, but resulting in a more cumbersome process of exploiting it?

Same can be said about old games tbh. Those are just games, why should we care?

And why not Windows Millenium or XP? Why should a digital store be the responsible of maintain forever support for an OS that is not patched anymore by the own developers? potential risks whose responsability would be for the store itself

Not mentioning the modern games themselves. Pure tested Requirements, from indies to AAA titles.

Talking about old games, one of the reasons GOG was created was for functional old games in new OSes, not for deprecated ones.
For vintage machines That's another matter, another world/culture and if you ask me very legit, a philosophy itself,

All i said is that it's funny to read someone whine about people using older OS on this forum.

But no, it's not about security, by the way. It's all about that dumb decision to use chromium for things Steam shouldn't even have. That's why the support is being dropped.

But whatever, the price of progress is screwing over people who pay for the stuff. Meh, at least GoG, for all it's faults, like removal of major patches and whatnot, still allows drm-free downloads with no needed hoops. 's the little things in life.

Windows 7 is the last good windows, anything after it is garbage.
Not everyone is a sheep like you, windows is garbage after 7. Im not using a bloated drm and spyware infested OS.

Exactly!

I don't need Google, Facebook, Yahoo, or any other site's scripts to run when it isn't needed and collecting my data; Thus only ones i approve of (or need to run certain sites) get to run.

Though i'd still prefer we didn't need them at all.

So is XP. And i like XP.

So far that's been true. Although if they had just been updating new features in without fucking up the UI and adding unwanted spyware and bloat, i'd have liked it more..

But the malware approach to trick you to convert (rather than upgrade) to 8, and it's terrible 'everything's a phone' UI layout...

Oh there's good things in the newer windows versions, like better compression for NTFS for files, but I haven't seen enough to support changing.

My kupuna still keeps his MS-DOS Gateway 386 rig. His nickname in our ohana is T-Rex.

That's called retro gaming.

Everyone is free to use Windows 7 as he pleases. He just can't count on support anymore, will have to rely on community patches and do some manual work. Who is to lazy for that, should get a new operating system.

I read the "sheep" argument again :) Never gets old.
That reminds me of the time when I said "Windows 95? NEVER!"
Badmouthing Windows is as old as Windows itself. Every version was the best one and everything after that was garbage. In two cases it was true: Millennium and Vista (the one crashing all the time, the other one being incredibly slow). All the other Windows versions work just fine.

If modern protection systems or browsers don't run on the old Windows version, one needs to use a old browser and a old protection program which are much more vulnerable to scripted attacks.
Also the older systems often allow more direct access for example to the file system, don't put programs in virtual encapsulated environments. Malware can get access to the system more easily. Protecteion under Windows 7 was MUCH better than under XP, but it's not on the level that Windows 10 and 11 offer. Old loopholes that were used by hackers have been corrected. This is not just the case for Windows, every operating system shares these properties. Also old Linux version are more vulnerable than new ones.
Some people claim that nothing ever changes and it's the same ones that say that the new one is much worse than the old one and they complain that the new software won't run on the old system ... how can that be if nothing changed? These are the people who don't see past the UI of a system. In the background a LOT more goes on than the (over) average user can see.
Sure, Windows is open enough that a lot can be updated manually. So yes, it is possible to get certain DX11 or DX12 components to run on Windows 7, maybe even DirectStorage (but I don't believe that), but who wants that needs to invest some work.

Other things may not work at all. If for example a Kernel function was updated to support "/" as file separator, then a program using this as separator won't run on a old version that does not support it, end of the line. So should the program be written in old standards instead of new ones? Everyone can decide that for himself.
In my company we don't give a rats ass about developing for Windows 7. If our software runs there - fine. But don't expect any support for it.

Fortunately I don't use Steam and am hoping GOG keeps support for Windows 7.

Someone above already posted the link to Smart App Control (read the 10th paragraph). For those who still don't understand, if Microsoft force-enabled this Smart App Control on W11 in future with no way of disabling (as they've increasingly made it harder to disable some stuff under consumer versions of W10) and no exclusion whitelist (which is how they designed it), then 2/3rds of the games on this store and virtually all .exe mods like Skyrim Script Extender, widescren patches, "NoCD's", etc, would all permanently stop working overnight (for being "unsigned" and thus "untrusted", which surprise surprise, is entirely normal for most older games).

"Why not XP / ME" because it's nothing remotely like XP vs Vista or 7 vs 10 or simply "I don't like the UI changes" (which are bad enough). It would literally mean the OS becomes a broken by design "walled garden" for those wanting to run older games. Fine for platforms like iOS which constantly break everything anyway, not so fine for a store which is all about selling older games and +30 years of backwards compatibility... "But they wouldn't be dumb enough to do that would they?" Considering they were dumb enough to design such a system with no manual exclusion whitelist, yes, yes Microsoft apparently are that dumb...

See above. It's exactly that blind faith that the newest Windows OS will always continue to "permit" older unsigned games to run (sounds like DRM...) that's exactly what Smart App Control could break rendering such philosophy worthless. This comment isn't aimed at you personally but some people here seem to be a little slower on the uptake than others in figuring out that "W11 Trusted Computing" isn't that you can trust your computer to do what's in your interests, it's all about Microsoft trusting your computer to do what's in their interests, and things like Smart App Control and TPM's Remote Attestation (both newly added giant remote DRM kill-switches specific to W11 and newer) obviously have the exact opposite interests in mind vs anyone interested in DRM-Free & older gaming...

They don't really. Which OS is supported, depends on the Game.

Galaxy 2.x however has listed Windows 8 in the requirements. While you might be able to run it on Windows 7, it is not officially supported.

Edit: Apparently also the offline installers need you to install a certain runtime in order to run, that's also something one would not expect.

ps:
I know the installers use a certain graphical subsystem which in Windows 11 currently is bugged. When you open them, they always are behind the file explorer window.
This is not caused by the installer, but by Windows itself. The same happens, if a program, that uses the new Windows API command to add menus to the new context menu is called by using the old context menu. Then it will open behing the file explorer windows.