We need a gaming specific OS

J

jebo_4jc

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2011
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
14,566
All of a sudden, all PC's would be closer to the console level in terms of available hardware resources. It seems like all we need is basically a launcher than we can load directX, OpenGL, and things like networking drivers into, and then we are off.

If Google wants to start waging war with MS, they should do this.
I would pay for a gaming-only OS....at least $50 for it.
 
It's called "Xbox 360".

edit: see comments below. The question posted is about software, not hardware, which obviously is part of xbox360.
 
Consoles are for n00bs that think there good....

But th reason i buy a PC is i can do much for than a console and i think MS is doing an okay job right now.

Waiting for Vista!
 
I think i read somewhere that the Xbox's OS is a ridiculously stripped down version of Windows 2000.

I'm still interested in what Vista Ultimate Edition's gaming features are going to be. Personally, i'd cheer if they just let you turn off the Start button on the keyboard so if i accidentally hit it in a game it it doesn't throw me out of it.
 
Phoenix86 said:
It's called "Xbox 360".
Click to expand...
Yeah but my PC with the stripped down OS is upgradeable....not to mention it has much better hardware.
 
Phoenix86 said:
It's called "Xbox 360".
Click to expand...
Not quite. You can't dualboot "Xbox360 OS" (or whatever) with XP Home and use it for everything else. :p
You can't upgrade it either, which isn't a bad thing in a console, but is a key feature of PCs.

I can kind-of, sort-of see the point of a dedicated PC Gaming OS. If it was a windows variant, it should be simple to port to (ideally a few hours work + debugging and testing) [1], and if it became a standard feature that you could, say, hold G while booting with the game DVD inserted to play a game (or not, to boot windows normally), it might be a decent idea.

After all, why have two pieces of hardware?
Computers are versatile and powerful, so we might as well use them for everything they can do. :)
(Incidentally, I've never owned a non-portable console.)


[1] Yes, I'm aware that the debugging and especially testing will be rather expensive.
 
Oh, sure you want a stripped down OS? Those are available too, but you DON'T want them for gaming. They have reduced functionality.

Really, no one's going to buy a $1000 PC for just games. They will, at a minimum also want: CD burning, music playback, video playback, internet access, etc. These are all functions of home.

Home really is the "gaming OS" until vista, then the game OS will be the Ultimate Edition (likely to be the most expensive, not the least).

You aren't going to get the ease of use like a console because you want it to work on PC hardware, IE everything under the sun. Unlike of course consoles, which don't have varying hardware.

The OP is looking for a cheaper version of the home product, basically saying it's too expensive.

I'd bet the OP also is willing to buy a $2-300 video card or processor, or has already spent that much on one.
 
Phoenix86 said:
Oh, sure you want a stripped down OS? Those are available too, but you DON'T want them for gaming. They have reduced functionality
Really, no one's going to buy a $1000 PC for just games. They will, at a minimum also want: CD burning, music playback, video playback, internet access, etc. These are all functions of home.
Click to expand...
As has been suggested, a dual boot scenario would be ideal. A "launcher" that would allow selections from a menu of installed games, and maybe a net browser is all that's needed, then another option to launch the full OS installed on a different drive.
Home really is the "gaming OS" until vista, then the game OS will be the Ultimate Edition (likely to be the most expensive, not the least).
Click to expand...
I don't know the specifics about the different versions of Vista, but I don't see how a $700, fully bloated version is the best gaming edition, aside from some gaming system evaluation tool or something
You aren't going to get the ease of use like a console because you want it to work on PC hardware, IE everything under the sun. Unlike of course consoles, which don't have varying hardware.
Click to expand...
That's the point of directx, isn't it? It will obviously require drivers, and will obviously require more resources overhead than, say, the "OS" on an xbox, but the point is we don't have to load a full blown OS with CD burning functionality, etc, just to run games.
The OP is looking for a cheaper version of the home product, basically saying it's too expensive.

I'd bet the OP also is willing to buy a $2-300 video card or processor, or has already spent that much on one.
Click to expand...
I said home is too expensive? Where did I say that? What I said was we need a "launcher", i.e. a bootable CD that would load drivers/directx/whatever else necessary and would allow access to games. I never said it would supplant Windows entirely. I think you missed the point of the post. Hope my thoughts are clearer now.
 
jebo_4jc said:
As has been suggested, a dual boot scenario would be ideal. A "launcher" that would allow selections from a menu of installed games, and maybe a net browser is all that's needed, then another option to launch the full OS installed on a different drive.
Click to expand...
Check out Windows XPE (embedded). This may do what you want. IIRC you can have it set to boot from CD/DVD. I'm not too familiar with what it can and can't do, so do some research, but it looks like the right direction for what you're asking for.

I don't know the specifics about the different versions of Vista, but I don't see how a $700, fully bloated version is the best gaming edition, aside from some gaming system evaluation tool or something.
Click to expand...
We'll have to wait and see the price, and what it does before we cast judgement.

I said home is too expensive? Where did I say that? What I said was we need a "launcher", i.e. a bootable CD that would load drivers/directx/whatever else necessary and would allow access to games. I never said it would supplant Windows entirely. I think you missed the point of the post. Hope my thoughts are clearer now.
Click to expand...
You said $50, as in cheaper than what you can currently get with Home for what, $80? OK So you're wanting an add-on to the normal OS build to just run games. Yep, you need to check out XPE.

Text.
 
I don't care how good the xbox is when it's main output is to a crappy tv...

unless you pay $3000 for a good tv...


Also note my computer dobles as a graphic studio for my dad's photo company and i do editing, my gaming machine, and my school productivity crap...did I mention TV as well?

It's a better deal then a console...my xbox is a server now...lol
 
I've considered this option before but the idea starts to drift into the realm of tweaking your XP down for games.

There's as much talk on both sides of the camp of whether "It's worth it" or "it isn't worth it" along the lines of performance increase and tweaking XP for games.

What is it you'd take away from lets say a current XP/SP2 type pc that would squeeze an extra 5% out of the hardware.

I don't see my system being that crippled when I game considering MSCONFIG show's I'm running ATI's driver/Sound driver (and a few other basics) and that's it. As far as services running, sure I could disable a few out there and be REALLY lucky to gain that 5% of performance.

I'm talking "big picture" here not bottom line specifics.
 
Good point Grimmda, it's not like you are going to get much performance out of it no matter how you slice it.

This is perhaps why the gaming OS for Vista is a superset of everything else. PC gamers tend to want all that and a bag of chips out of their OS. Take for example how many people use Pro vs Home for their gaming rigs.
 
I've thought about XP embedded as a gaming platform before, but I wasn't sure how much of a problem compatibility would be....your post got me thinking about it though...I think my friend probably has access to it via his MSDN account, he and I will probably try it out on his pc to see how feasible it is.
 
Well I'm still just a bit unclear as to the point. Why have a seperate OS install for games?
 
Phoenix86 said:
Well I'm still just a bit unclear as to the point. Why have a seperate OS install for games?
Click to expand...
My thinking is, the less you have to load, OS-wise, the less your OS is hogging your resources, and the less overhead your hardware has to deal with, and the faster the games will run. The Xbox has run good games for years now using a 800mhz P3 because of it's fully dedicated hardware.
 
its called XP embedded, serously, I use it on my gaming pc, it can usually squeeze out an extra 10% preformance in most games, I know in 3dmark 03 it gave me an extra 1000 points on my system :D (compaired to a clean freshly installed OS) plus it uses the explorer shell, not much else works on it other than games, firefox and msn messenger (pretty much all other programs either look strange/broken or don't work at all) but its really fast :D
 
jebo_4jc said:
My thinking is, the less you have to load, OS-wise, the less your OS is hogging your resources, and the less overhead your hardware has to deal with, and the faster the games will run. The Xbox has run good games for years now using a 800mhz P3 because of it's fully dedicated hardware.
Click to expand...
This is perhaps a logical fault on your part. As long as you have enough RAM to run all the active processes at the same time, you really aren't hitting performance much at all by loading "extra" stuff. In the real world, you may shave some boot time off because you are loading less, but once loaded it should be minimal difference.

This is the same logic that leads people to disabling services, which in general does nothing for performace.

Now, XPE isn't XP, so there may be some gains to be had, but again, I don't expect much. The 10% mentioned above surprises me.

Chilly, what are you comparing to show this difference? Do you see this difference in measurable FPS during a game?
 
When was the last time you played games on an Xbox/PS2/Gamecube/etc at 1600x1200 or higher with FSAA and all the other goodies. Sorry, but I've been an avid PC gamer for so many years now it's not even funny. There isn't a console on the market today or the next 5 years that I'd even dream of purchasing (and no, I've never owned one except for an Atari 2600 many yarns ago). They simply cannot compete with the raw power and capability of a real computer.

I want a computer for many reasons, just a small part of that being entertainment in the form of games. I was recording TV shows on my PC 7 years ago, long before today's Media Center PC came along. I know some hacks of the Xbox allow "media center"-like functionality but, to me, toying around with that thing and having something go wrong because I'm trying to get it to do something it was never intended to be used for, well. I guess my "hacking" days have long since passed.

Consoles are for those people that want gaming without the bulk of a computer, I'd say. Yes, they're cheaper but not by much considering you can get a full blown working computer that can almost match a PS2/Xbox in gaming performance for what, $300-400 these days? I'd buy a PC for that amount of money before I'd even take a PS2/Xbox for free (it'd go on eBay quick).

I won an Xbox 360 from that Pepsi "Every 15 Minutes" contest a few weeks back; it'll go on eBay after I receive it. I have no use for it but the sales proceeds will buy me a new LCD for my old Dell laptop and a 7200 rpm 2.5" hard drive to boot.

I understand why people buy consoles, but I'm just not one of them. I want more from my computing power than killing bosses.

Just my $.02.
bb
 
br0adband, dude, re-read the thread. This has nothing to do with xbox hardware. I made the mistake and don't want to derail the thread into console vs. PC.

I'll edit my first post now...
 
In the real world, you may shave some boot time off because you are loading less, but once loaded it should be minimal difference.
Click to expand...

Although this seems to make sense, I can't help but recall the HUGE drop in game performance when I first went from DOS to win95. From then on, I booted to a command prompt whenever I was gaming.

And ever since the first win95-only game I bought, I've been thinking "We need a gaming specific OS" :D
 
this makes total sense to me too..

windows xp runs like crap on a computer with 256mb or less of ram.. try it.. especially 128mb.... it isn't just services running.. there is a whole OS running and using resources...

therefore a trimmed down os makes sense.. anyone run a dual boot computer? i have on and off for 10 years.. just choose the os you want when you start up.. bam.. you could even "hibernate" your main os.. boot into your gaming os.. then when you want to go back to windows boot into it and everything will be how you left it...

so i don't know much about programming or why the hell XP won't run on a p100 with 32mb of ram when 95 will be perfectly fine on it.. but a gaming os could be made that basically manages all the drivers required to run the games, and that's really it..
 
I honestly believe most people on this forum have no idea how performance in an operating system works. ;) But, sure for the sake of argument let's say there is something to be gained by having another SKU of windows, let's call it Gamer Extreme Edition.

GEE will be a special sku without any of those performance "slowing" components. Pull IE? Sure, who would be using a web browser for gaming, except those popcap games. So leave IE. Let's get rid of Windows Media Player, that's obviously not needed, GEE shouldn't be bothered, except for all those games that use the Media Player API's and Codecs. Doh. Alright, well maybe we should just boot it up and have nothing run from start, but the game. Special boot mode we'll call it. We'll just reboot right off the bat, and go straight into the game. So I join the network game of Doom, what my wireless card doesn't work? Damn, gotta reboot and start that configuration first, and then start doom.

Hmm, well let's see, we should leave all this stuff in, since games do use it. And we might need to reconfigure stuff, so we probably shouldn't load straight off the bat, hmm, well maybe we'll start the game at a higher priority, and lower everything else. That's the ticket! GEE will give the game realtime priority! Sweet, I can now frag with the best of them, I'm fragging, dodging and weaving, this is great, and then the game hits a bug. Well, it's ok I'll alt-tab out and reset the game. What's going on? ALT-Tab, doesn't work, CTRL-ALT-Delete seems to be malfunctioning, it's not working real well either, I wonder why? ;) Oh yeah, I started realtime, so I just starved the other tools from helping me resolve my crisis. Crud...

Well that's ok, we'll work around all these issues! We'll make GEE awesome. Then those poor gamer devs now gotta test on another extreme gaming edition. Which adds a whole new matrix of tests to the platform.

GEE, seems like XP Home to me, by the time we're done. ;)

Note:
This design philosophy was 5 minutes of what if thinking by me.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
um, why not just create a special runlevel that only loads libraries related to gaming (and a specific gaming library to handle common physics, environment, and input methods, etc). that library should be extendable by programmers for their own needs. When the user wants to game, the computer switches run levels. When the user wants to go back to their normal desktop mode, the computer switches run levels again. sessions could be saved the same way modern desktop environments do currently (for you windows people think of how windows 'saves' a session if you switch users - when you come back everything is how you left it)

I don't know much about how the consoles are coded, seeing as they are closed source, but i'd assume thats exactly how they're set up. After all, as was mentioned, the xbox IS windows NT 5.0. It's just got a shitload of stuff stripped out, and runs at a whopping (approx) 320x240 resolution.
 
A "Game OS" would need to have some significant optimizations to be worthwhile. I would expect it to compile for your system on install (Like some Linux distro's), and build a profile for each game that only lets the services run that are needed for the game to function properly.
 
Works fine with Linux, I can use XDM to start a session that is UT2k4 and even a session that is Cedega.

However much I like GNOME for practical reasons, I do like my CPU time and RAM (however little the extra is) for my use.

I even do the same for Matlab where only 1% increase in CPU time can cut one of my models simulation time from 10h to 9h
 
There is something missing from both sides of the arguments although I saw one of them being addressed.

For consoles, resolutions are nowhere near as high as they can be run on PC's. That is a big performance boost right there. Also, games for consoles are made specifically for that hardware and that hardware along. They don't have to worry about making it work with 100 different graphics cards and chipsets. It's much easier to optimize the game for one specific set of hardware.

On the OS side of things, while some of the basics for the kernel are the same between Win2k or XP and the Xbox kernel, I don't think they are the same kernel period. A gaming version of the kernel could be made for the PC. You would not find the same performance as you would for a console but I would bet you could get a significant increase in performance. The only problem with this would be that games may have to be specifically made for that version of the gaming OS. Drivers would probably have to be rewritten also, and not just graphics cards drivers. Also, the only way you could run the gaming specific OS would be to run a dual boot system.

While a gaming specific OS for PC's could be written, the obstacles and support for it is not cost effective even if you didn't have to buy games specifically made to run on it. Sure, it would be nice to have, but economics says there is not enough money to be made to make it worthwhile.

 
Ranma_Sao said:
I honestly believe most people on this forum have no idea how performance in an operating system works. ;) But, sure for the sake of argument let's say there is something to be gained by having another SKU of windows, let's call it Gamer Extreme Edition.

GEE will be a special sku without any of those performance "slowing" components. Pull IE? Sure, who would be using a web browser for gaming, except those popcap games. So leave IE. Let's get rid of Windows Media Player, that's obviously not needed, GEE shouldn't be bothered, except for all those games that use the Media Player API's and Codecs. Doh. Alright, well maybe we should just boot it up and have nothing run from start, but the game. Special boot mode we'll call it. We'll just reboot right off the bat, and go straight into the game. So I join the network game of Doom, what my wireless card doesn't work? Damn, gotta reboot and start that configuration first, and then start doom.

Hmm, well let's see, we should leave all this stuff in, since games do use it. And we might need to reconfigure stuff, so we probably shouldn't load straight off the bat, hmm, well maybe we'll start the game at a higher priority, and lower everything else. That's the ticket! GEE will give the game realtime priority! Sweet, I can now frag with the best of them, I'm fragging, dodging and weaving, this is great, and then the game hits a bug. Well, it's ok I'll alt-tab out and reset the game. What's going on? ALT-Tab, doesn't work, CTRL-ALT-Delete seems to be malfunctioning, it's not working real well either, I wonder why? ;) Oh yeah, I started realtime, so I just starved the other tools from helping me resolve my crisis. Crud...

Well that's ok, we'll work around all these issues! We'll make GEE awesome. Then those poor gamer devs now gotta test on another extreme gaming edition. Which adds a whole new matrix of tests to the platform.

GEE, seems like XP Home to me, by the time we're done. ;)

Note:
This design philosophy was 5 minutes of what if thinking by me.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Click to expand...


Here here! GEE sucks man, what a waste! :p
 
MTB2Live said:
um, why not just create a special runlevel that only loads libraries related to gaming (and a specific gaming library to handle common physics, environment, and input methods, etc). that library should be extendable by programmers for their own needs. When the user wants to game, the computer switches run levels. When the user wants to go back to their normal desktop mode, the computer switches run levels again. sessions could be saved the same way modern desktop environments do currently (for you windows people think of how windows 'saves' a session if you switch users - when you come back everything is how you left it)
Click to expand...

What would you take out & how much would really be gained?

The big advantages consoles have is because they don't have to worry about universal driver frameworks, & having to scale performance up and down to get acceptable performance out of hardware with different speeds and featuresets.

Back in the the days of straight VGA-compatable video and Soundblaster, Adlib or PC Speaker audio, you could run a stripped down OS (DOS) because you didn't need a general purpose hardware framework - you had a CPU, an input device, a framebuffer and an audio DAC that, other than the speed of the CPU, would be the same everywhere. The only way to get down to that level today is with a dedicated, unchanging piece of hardware (IE - a console).

So, if you can't get the bennefits of a consistant set of hardware, what's left to be gained by running a stripped-down OS? I've got a fairly bloated install of Windows here at work and, sitting here typing, my CPU is still 99% idle. Installing a new OS to get that last 1% back does not seem like a worthwhile use of my time.

When most people can get a boost by simply turning off their virus scanner, what's the point in a new OS?
 
ameoba said:
What would you take out & how much would really be gained?

The big advantages consoles have is because they don't have to worry about universal driver frameworks, & having to scale performance up and down to get acceptable performance out of hardware with different speeds and featuresets.
Click to expand...
This is a very valid point, not all that much would be gained. I don't know very much about how the lowest levels of an operating system are coded, so I'm definitely not in a place to comment on how easy/hard it would be to design. It's fun to think out loud everynow and then, though :).
 
i'd say just typing "init 3" sounds much better, and when you're done, just type "init 2" and all the services you shut down all start back up again.

scottatwittenberg said:
this makes total sense to me too..

windows xp runs like crap on a computer with 256mb or less of ram.. try it.. especially 128mb.... it isn't just services running.. there is a whole OS running and using resources...

therefore a trimmed down os makes sense.. anyone run a dual boot computer? i have on and off for 10 years.. just choose the os you want when you start up.. bam.. you could even "hibernate" your main os.. boot into your gaming os.. then when you want to go back to windows boot into it and everything will be how you left it...

so i don't know much about programming or why the hell XP won't run on a p100 with 32mb of ram when 95 will be perfectly fine on it.. but a gaming os could be made that basically manages all the drivers required to run the games, and that's really it..
Click to expand...
 
MTB2Live said:
This is a very valid point, not all that much would be gained. I don't know very much about how the lowest levels of an operating system are coded, so I'm definitely not in a place to comment on how easy/hard it would be to design. It's fun to think out loud everynow and then, though :).
Click to expand...

I've already said this, but I think it bears repeating with a more clear wording.
There might or might not be a performance gain to be had, but that's not the point. (Ok, not my point.)
A dedicated OS or even just a sort of selectable front end for a normal one [1] has the potential to make PC gaming as convenient as console gaming. Insert CD or select installed games from a menu, and go. To install, insert DVD and wait a hopefully short while. [2]

Personally, I think the current state of PC gaming is just fine, so I wouldn't pay for this. It's an interesting idea, though.

[1] Normal boot, Safe mode, Game mode ?
[2] Something image-based with odd and interesting variations has the potential to be quite fast.
 
If all you needed was more memory, then WinXP with 1GB ram would run just as fast as win95 on a 300mhz computer? C'mon the more things that are running the more things the computer keeps track of. And BTW Check out http://www.litepc.com/ 98lite used to kick ass now there's a version for XP
 
yes, the more things that run the more things windows has to keep track of, hence more memory(btw, idle processes are idle processes, that don't take up cpu cycles until they are given data and cause an interrupt). C'mon, no one is going to create a "gamers" OS at Redmond. And don't even talk about Linux as a gaming OS, I've been there and done that, recently, and it still has a long way to go(immature drivers, cedega needs maturation/needs native linux games). If you want a gamers OS, start killing unneeded servces in XP by either going to msconfig => services or right click MyComputer => manage => services. Thats the only way. An OS configured any lighter would just be win 2000 with just your drivers loaded into a stripped out explorer.exe shell. That would be gay. That would save you 20-50MB of mem space and would cause your computer to be worm/virus/spyware ridden within a month, because auto-update is for regular XP, and spyware scanners take up 3MB of memory :rolleyes: Stop being cheap and lazy, buy the extra memory and pare down your own OS to your needs. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top