a true gaming OS?

[dlandis72]

I have never researched this idea, so I don't know if it has already been done, but why isn't there some sort of gaming operating system? I was contemplating how consoles have much lower system specs than PC's, but they can still perform on comparable levels. So what causes the difference? PC's need to run windows and all kinds of other crap while they are running games, which means that the games don't benefit from the full power of the hardware. What if somebody created an OS or something that would be used to launch games before Windows even started? The OS would be incredibly simple, something like the menu of a PS2 or a GCN, so that it wouldn't take up many of the system resources. This way, the PC's could reach their full potential and stop wasting all of that expensive hardware on programs and processes that gamers don't care about (at least while they are playing games). What do you think?

 

[Snowden]

And then you could dual boot that with your normal OS for normal tasks... sounds like a great idea.

Edit: One problem is that a console only needs to be optimized for one set of hardware whereas this OS would still need to function with a huge range of hardware. I wonder how big a performance increase would be possible to get?

 

[jondy]

But how will you hide the fact that you've been playing BF2 for three hours when your girlfriend walks in? You wouldn't be able to quickly tab to the FTSE index D:

 

[Dekstar]

But how will you hide the fact that you've been playing BF2 for three hours when your girlfriend walks in? You wouldn't be able to quickly tab to the FTSE index D:

Not a problem, it'd probably be able to feature a konspose (similar to Mac OS or Konfabulator) which would show a customisable screen/webpage at the press of a button. :E

 

[Vegeta897]

According to what I know offhand, Windows Vista is optimised for gaming.

Who would want to reboot their computer every time they play a game :/

A game dedicated OS wouldn't be that much better, it just wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Narcolepsy]

According to what I know offhand, Windows Vista is optimised for gaming.

Who would want to reboot their computer every time they play a game :/

A game dedicated OS wouldn't be that much better, it just wouldn't be worth it.

On my system, the total footprint before a game is even loaded is about 250MB. Getting rid of that would be almost like adding a 256 MB stick of RAM - not negligible at all.

 

[jondy]

According to what I know offhand, Windows Vista is optimised for gaming.

And wordprocessing, and the internet, and multimedia..

Although DX10 looks interesting.

 

[boglito]

I have never researched this idea, so I don't know if it has already been done, but why isn't there some sort of gaming operating system? I was contemplating how consoles have much lower system specs than PC's, but they can still perform on comparable levels. So what causes the difference? PC's need to run windows and all kinds of other crap while they are running games, which means that the games don't benefit from the full power of the hardware. What if somebody created an OS or something that would be used to launch games before Windows even started? The OS would be incredibly simple, something like the menu of a PS2 or a GCN, so that it wouldn't take up many of the system resources. This way, the PC's could reach their full potential and stop wasting all of that expensive hardware on programs and processes that gamers don't care about (at least while they are playing games). What do you think?

DirectX means windows = dedicated gaming os.

.bog.

 

[Snowden]

DirectX means windows = dedicated gaming os.

.bog.

If you remove a whole lot of stuff from windows xp (and I mean a lot), you can create a version that runs games faster. So your statement can't be entirely true.

 

[WhiteZero]

Actually, consoles can run games with lower specs mostly because the games are highly optimized for that specific hardware. With PC's, you have tens of thousands of combinations that the dev has to worry about.

 

[boglito]

If you remove a whole lot of stuff from windows xp (and I mean a lot), you can create a version that runs games faster. So your statement can't be entirely true.

Windows could be better (and they claim vista will be), but there wont be any game-os without directx in the not to distant future.


.bog.

 

[OCybrManO]

Windows could be better (and they claim vista will be), but there wont be any game-os without directx in the not to distant future.


.bog.

Gaming was done before DirectX... and, after DirectX dies, gaming will continue without it. DirectX is just Microsoft's collection of APIs. If you can get the kind of graphics seen in the demonstrations of the new Unreal engine out of OpenGL (used in the PS3)... it's obvious that Direct3D isn't the only option. Also, this impressive performance increase we're supposed to see in Vista is just Microsoft finally cleaning out a lot of the old crap that had been building up over the various Windows releases. Sure, I'm looking forward to it, but I would prefer it if they would thoroughly clean out that junk every time they make a new OS... rather than once per decade or two.

 

[smwScott]

Consoles have the advantage primarily because the hardware is universal making it incredibly easier to push the hardware to its limits, and they have always been able to render games in much lower resolutions while producing similar quality (this is changing with the "HD Era," but they're still lower res than PC games). Of course the fact that the hardware is dedicated solely to games helps tremendously, but porting this concept over to PCs wouldn't turn it into the type of pure game machine you'd expect from a console.

No one can really speak for Vista, but XP is pretty inefficient when it comes to running games. This idea probably would help some.

 

[Cole]

Also, this impressive performance increase we're supposed to see in Vista is just Microsoft finally cleaning out a lot of the old crap that had been building up over the various Windows releases.

NOT AT ALL.
Everything that is unneeded by the game will get unloaded now so it's basically like starting a game from Dos.
Hybrid Hard Drives - ever hear of them? Microsoft is going to be getting these out there with a massive MASSIVE marketing campaign before Vista releases. They use flash memory to store things needed right away on the HD. Flash Memory is MUCH faster than an HD so you can transfer this much quicker. they are using techniques like this for an extremely quick installation for games to.
DX10 and 64bit Computing. Not only this but WGF will screw over all this graphic corruption. Rather than ATI and Nvidia having there own seperate ways of doing shit and the programmer having to code hell for it. It's either "It supports this or it dosn't", with WGF both will render the same.

One of the major MAJOR things that Microsoft is doing with Vista is bringing Pc's back into the gaming market. Go look at old threads with all the Vista features, theres tons of info talking about Vista and Gaming.

 

[B_MAN]

But how will you hide the fact that you've been playing BF2 for three hours when your girlfriend walks in? You wouldn't be able to quickly tab to the FTSE index D:

whipped much?

 

[boglito]

Gaming was done before DirectX... and, after DirectX dies, gaming will continue without it. DirectX is just Microsoft's collection of APIs. If you can get the kind of graphics seen in the demonstrations of the new Unreal engine out of OpenGL (used in the PS3)... it's obvious that Direct3D isn't the only option. Also, this impressive performance increase we're supposed to see in Vista is just Microsoft finally cleaning out a lot of the old crap that had been building up over the various Windows releases. Sure, I'm looking forward to it, but I would prefer it if they would thoroughly clean out that junk every time they make a new OS... rather than once per decade or two.

Gaming was indeed done before directx, but directx has completely dominated the market for a while now. Talking ps3 makes no sense in this regard because it is a platform with one hw-config, exactly the scenario where directx is not needed. The very definition of a pc is customizable hw, and for as long as that is true directx (or something like it) will be what game-developers choose to work with.

We will not (in the nearest 10 years) see a new "gaming os" that does not originate from MS and directx. Ofcourse, if MS was forced to make directx available to all OS-developers for a reasonable license then that could be partly wrong, but the morons working with these kind of issues are currently worried about wmp, which, apart from being a good program, doesn't really contribute to MS monopoly.

It _is_ possible to make games for other platforms as ID makes a point of proving by releasing their games on linux too, but it just is too much work to make any sort of sense economically. Ofcourse, if MS with vista decides to make their OS unpiratable (let us all pray) then alternative systems might actually get a foothold. Would be a long process, and I doubt ms are stupid enough, but who knows?

.bog.

 

[jondy]

whipped much?

It hurts D:

 

[VirusType2]

couple reasons consoles are so efficient

1) The different parts of hardware in a console is selected to compliment each other perfectly

2) The arcitecture is just very efficient, the distance the data has to travel is shorter between parts, which does make a difference. I've heard that the Bus speed is faster

3) the games that run on consoles are custom optimized to run on that exact hardware.

4)they can alter every single effect in thier game and such if they detect any slowdown or loss of frames they can just lower the suspect effect slightly.

Usually lowering that special effect may not be noticable and con sometimes actually look better than the "spare nothing do insane particle explosion effect that makes your framerate suck here"


5 )yea, and sometimes they just remove a GPU intensive effect like anti-aliasing which improves performance considerably and didn't make much of an improvement on a Television anyway.

6) last but not least, like you said, they aren't running Windows in the backround either.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

If you created yoiur own OS, you most likely would have to create a new API (since you aren't in Windows, DirectX won't work), and then you need to convince programmers to start using your API... Good luck

Yes Vista will be better for gaming. It all has to do with hardware being "DX10 Certified"... Right now, to be DX9 certified, you have to follow a very loose restrictions on your hardware... For DX10, it will be a LOT LOT stricter. This means that no longer will programmers have to deal with "This feature works on only Nvidia and not ATI" cards... It is the removal of "cap bits" if any of you know programming... Basically you don't have to really focus on special cases for each hardware, if you code something that is DX10 compliant, it is guaranteed to work on all the hardware.

With current DX9, since a lot of hardware is "DX9 compliant", but yet is still missing lots of functionality, you need to code specifically for some hardware.

It's pretty good that this is happenning actually.

 

[Stigmata]

couple reasons consoles are so efficient

1) The different parts of hardware in a console is selected to compliment each other perfectly

2) The arcitecture is just very efficient, the distance the data has to travel is shorter between parts, which does make a difference. I've heard that the Bus speed is faster

3) the games that run on consoles are custom optimized to run on that exact hardware.

4)they can alter every single effect in thier game and such if they detect any slowdown or loss of frames they can just lower the suspect effect slightly.

Usually lowering that special effect may not be noticable and con sometimes actually look better than the "spare nothing do insane particle explosion effect that makes your framerate suck here"


5 )yea, and sometimes they just remove a GPU intensive effect like anti-aliasing which improves performance considerably and didn't make much of an improvement on a Television anyway.

6) last but not least, like you said, they aren't running Windows in the backround either.

1) That really depends on the development time devoted to the console. Some consoles have had great sets of complementary hardware, others were essentially "Okay, this CPU is fast, this GPU is fast, hey, 64MB of RAM looks good, and we're done!"

2) Again, depends on the console. But I'll agree on the basis that consoles are, as a rule, smaller than PCs, so the signal distances are inherently smaller.

3) *nods*

4) Actually, that's entirely up to the individual developer. Command & Conquer Generals used that process to good effect on PC, while most games, regardless of platform, force effects based on your personal settings.

5) Also mostly up to the developer. Though, to be fair, AA can actually be quite a noticeable effect on standard-def screens, assuming you have a sharp screen.

6) Yes, that's one of the bigger advantages consoles have over PCs. But with Vista's gaming-button dealy, you can shut off all nonessential processes, so that will definitely help.

 

[Steve]

But how will you hide the fact that you've been playing BF2 for three hours when your girlfriend walks in? You wouldn't be able to quickly tab to the FTSE index D:

Well...that's more of a problem between you and your girlfriend.

 

[Asuka]

Vista ALL THE WAY!!! Cant wait! Dx10 here i come!