ooooooooo

Well, it's a nice idea, but really, this would essentially mean PC gamers would have to own 2 PC's. Granted, a lot of PC gamers DO own more than one PC... but still. I like being able to do what I need on one machine.zomglolcats

you could always dual-boot.

Still I'd just prefer for Vista and followers to get better, look at how much nvidia and others are having problems keeping up with drivers... it would add more trouble than anything.

BTW topic starter, you can run any 32bit app in vista 64, it's drivers you should be talking about.

It's not that hard to limit the amount of processes you have running. Run > msconfig (Only use this if you know what you are doing, just saying so you won't sue me incase you screw up). RAM isn't that expensive. You can get atleast 1 GB quite cheap if you look around a little. So most people got 1 GB, if not more.

Even if you got a 64-bit system, you still need to wait until the other software developers make their software 64-bit compatible. I believe this is why microsoft wants their next OS to be only 64-bit, to force everyone to adept.

I just don't see any benefits when compared to what we got in XP now. Why is XP worse then this so called Gaming OS?

By the way, I think ATI is now part of AMD.

We could have a spot for demos, news, trailers, ect,ect. It would be all right there, at our finger tips.

4seal

It's called the internet.

I just don't see any benefits when compared to what we got in XP now. Why is XP worse then this so called Gaming OS?

By the way, I think ATI is now part of AMD.

BlackAlpha666

I see you're using the Xbox 360 as a template which is fine but the problem here is there is too many hardware and software configurations that it would be very hard to optimize an OS just for gaming. It would also be very hard for developers to optimize a game with so many configurations out there.

I think what would be far more advantageous is if you could simply have boot options for your existing OS, with a bias towards either gaming or productivity. So when you boot, you get an option just as you would with a dual-boot system, but this time for 'Gaming' or 'Business' etc., and depending on your selection the OS only loads exactly what it needs to run that option. So for 'Gaming' it would only load chunks of code necessary to run games, and should theoretically improve performance by trimming off the excess applications/drivers.

If someone developed a brand new Gamer's OS that I had to install separately and do a dual-boot, I probably wouldn't bother with it at all. If, however, they included options for my existing OS to boot streamlined to cope only with games (and do that easily rather than go through system configs by hand) then I would use it.

*Looks at XBL and then looks at the TCs post.* Nah....a PC gamer wouldn't want a XBL clone...now would we? Seriously, a lot of people use their PCs for more then just gaming. I honestly wouldn't want to have to own two operating systems (Increasing my initial investment in my system) to do the task that one operating system works well. As for demos, etc, you can find that through game news sites and download sites.

Sure, removing processes and changing the core of the system to be optimized for lower end system specs would be great but would be hard as anything to design for. You would always have new configurations coming out that may not work well with the OS or have performance issues, which removes the need for a gaming OS. Then you have the fact that the greedy OS developer (More likely Microsoft) would toss in that subscription fee for online play....no thank you.

Sorry to break this to you TC but a gaming OS is a console.:)

Great idea but when I hear computers I think of much more then gaming.

Let me share why I think we need a gaming OS. Then you can tell me if I'm right, wrong, or misinformed.

If we had a OS made special just for gaming, we could make it 64 bit standard. Which helps your gaming proformence (duh).But you say vista has a 64bit. The problem with that is, not all programs work on it. You see, this is why people like me, did not get the 64bit verson. Beucase I had a lot of programs that would not even work on it from what I understood. If you had a gaming OS, it would not be for running other programs on (you could still run some stuff but you know what I mean). Just for games. Which would get rid of that problem. But it would also allow developers to take full atvantage of 64 bit. Beucase they would know everyone would have it.

Next, there would be less things running in the backround of your computer. There would just be less stuff all togehter. That way you can spend less on computer parts and get more performence. Which would make computer upgrades more affordable. As you can see, the 360 can do huge games with just 512 ram. Somthing we could not do because of all the other things going on.

If we had a gaming OS, we may just stop getting left out. Beucase pc gamers would be more reconizeable. I remember last E3, xbox 360 got tons of demos from E3 only fpr 360, and new info on there games. I remember thinking, where is the pc stuff? Why do we never get anything? With a gaming OS, now don't shoot me here, but just immagine the xbox 360 UI. Now it would be somthing like that on the pc, but better of course :)

We could have a spot for demos, news, trailers, ect,ect. It would be all right there, at our finger tips. Well, thats why I think we need a gaming OS. There are of course porblems with it, but over all I think it will be better for pc gaming. So what do you guys think? you agree? or am I wrong?

EDIT- I also forgot to mention it would probably be easyer to combat piracy with somthing like this.

4seal

If you are going to make an OS that would limit a PC to just gaming, which is what basically is what console OS's do, then why not just buy a console? I personally use a PC for far more than just gaming so it wouldn't be viable for me.

Let me share why I think we need a gaming OS. Then you can tell me if I'm right, wrong, or misinformed.

If we had a OS made special just for gaming, we could make it 64 bit standard. Which helps your gaming proformence (duh).But you say vista has a 64bit. The problem with that is, not all programs work on it. You see, this is why people like me, did not get the 64bit verson. Beucase I had a lot of programs that would not even work on it from what I understood. If you had a gaming OS, it would not be for running other programs on (you could still run some stuff but you know what I mean). Just for games. Which would get rid of that problem. But it would also allow developers to take full atvantage of 64 bit. Beucase they would know everyone would have it.

Next, there would be less things running in the backround of your computer. There would just be less stuff all togehter. That way you can spend less on computer parts and get more performence. Which would make computer upgrades more affordable. As you can see, the 360 can do huge games with just 512 ram. Somthing we could not do because of all the other things going on.

If we had a gaming OS, we may just stop getting left out. Beucase pc gamers would be more reconizeable. I remember last E3, xbox 360 got tons of demos from E3 only fpr 360, and new info on there games. I remember thinking, where is the pc stuff? Why do we never get anything? With a gaming OS, now don't shoot me here, but just immagine the xbox 360 UI. Now it would be somthing like that on the pc, but better of course :)

We could have a spot for demos, news, trailers, ect,ect. It would be all right there, at our finger tips. Well, thats why I think we need a gaming OS. There are of course porblems with it, but over all I think it will be better for pc gaming. So what do you guys think? you agree? or am I wrong?

EDIT- I also forgot to mention it would probably be easyer to combat piracy with somthing like this.

4seal

A better idea would be if the next Windows had a gaming mode bootup, similar to the safe mode bootup that current windows have. If MS did something like that then it could have some of the benefits you are suggesting without someone having to create a whole new OS.

The OS is not the limiting factor for PC games, it's the hardware.

I think what would be far more advantageous is if you could simply have boot options for your existing OS, with a bias towards either gaming or productivity. So when you boot, you get an option just as you would with a dual-boot system, but this time for 'Gaming' or 'Business' etc., and depending on your selection the OS only loads exactly what it needs to run that option. So for 'Gaming' it would only load chunks of code necessary to run games, and should theoretically improve performance by trimming off the excess applications/drivers.

If someone developed a brand new Gamer's OS that I had to install separately and do a dual-boot, I probably wouldn't bother with it at all. If, however, they included options for my existing OS to boot streamlined to cope only with games (and do that easily rather than go through system configs by hand) then I would use it.

RobertBowen

You put into words exactly what I was thinking. If they had a program or mini-OS that could be installed to XP and/or Vista that allowed for a boot into it to shave off anything non-essential to running the game, that would be the best possible option.

no its time for pc game devs to provide widespread linux supportinyourface_12

The OS is not the limiting factor for PC games, it's the hardware.

Gog

[QUOTE="Gog"]

The OS is not the limiting factor for PC games, it's the hardware.

teebeenz

That's not the point. It's a trade-off between functionality and performance.

This difference between OS is negligible compare to the difference between a current low-end and a high-end PC. Game developers have to make a game that runs on both. A gaming OS would not make this easier.

No. When I'm gaming I tend to run games, IRC, forums (browser), teamspeak, winamp, fraps, word and more all at once - as part of my gaming experience.

If I had to sacrifice anything, it would detract from my gaming experience quite a bit. I couldn't do it. The whole reason I use a PC is because of how multifunctional it is. i would not really want to take the very thing that symbollises the PC - multifunctionality, customisation - and say, I don't want this any more. I want specialisation. That's what consoles are for.

I don't want specialisation. It may lead to better performance and gaming functionality - but I don't want it. And I don't think we need it.

Gamers & PC users are two very different kettles of fish. On the one hand with general PC users you are targeting a much wider demographic- you have to think of all the businesses, schools and universities that pay for software licences on a non-specialised OS like Windows XP or Windows Vista. Now compare that to the amount of PC gamers out there who would truly notice/care about such a difference in performance (between a normal OS and a gaming OS) and you will have quite a difference in market size. Gamers are a very specific audience, especially PC gamers. You aren't going to target the console market with a gaming OS because the reason people use consoles in the first place is to avoid all the setting up of drivers, installation of games, upgrading parts etc. So basically all you are targetting is the PC gamer market and as we've seen this is not where the money is to be had, there is much more to be made selling games on consoles (due to less piracy etc).

I suppose if you implement some sort of advanced anti-piracy measures then it could potentially work but really that's just edging ever closer to a much more established product- the gaming console. What would be interesting is a console with upgradable parts but then of course you have the problem of a platform that now has non-standardized hardware so it can be kind of self-defeating in that way.

That's not the point. It's a trade-off between functionality and performance.Gog

People who spend time complaing about OS bloating would be better off spending time working harder so they have money for RAM.

I think a gaming OS, or a gaming mode for Vista would be a great idea. Something that doesn't load up loads of system draining utilities that always build up on a system over time, and is focused on good performance for games. I don't think that adding another OS would make the situation any more complicated than it already is, with so many different "flavours" of Vista (32bit, 64bit, basic, home, home premium, ultimate...)

Given the Windows - Microsoft - xbox 360 connection I can see MS making the OS for the PC and 360 similar to allow more compatibility between them.

If we had a gaming OS wouldnt it just become a console?

An onject that can only be sued to game, no spreadsheets, no word processing, no design apps...
They are the sole reason i choose PC over console int he first place, i can use it for everything!

well MS could easliy make a gaming OS. take XP...get an axe and start chopping. keep chopping untill all the OS can do is play games (online and off of course) and browse the internet. keep bringing it down until the OSs footprint is below 100MB. then start going through all the remaining code and tighten it up and refine it as much as possible so that data can be shoved around with less overhead. then add DX10 support. the come up with a new driver model with performance in mind and *bing* ure done...a nice gaming OS thats very fast, has great BC, works with all existing modern games (they dont need to be gaming OS compatible out of the box) and allows devs to use more of the PCs resources without the OS bogging it all down.

they could then go onto redoing the UI so that tis more games focused (as long as it doesent take up more memory and other resources) but thats not such a big deal.

[QUOTE="4seal"]

We could have a spot for demos, news, trailers, ect,ect. It would be all right there, at our finger tips.

Hot_Potato

It's called the internet.

lol yeah

Sorry to break this to you TC but a gaming OS is a console.:)

Great idea but when I hear computers I think of much more then gaming.

OoSuperMarioO

That's funny considering you (and those that stated the same thing) haven't noticed that consoles are becoming more like PCs every new platform that comes out.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

Sorry to break this to you TC but a gaming OS is a console.:)

Great idea but when I hear computers I think of much more then gaming.

weirjf

That's funny considering you (and those that stated the same thing) haven't noticed that consoles are becoming more like PCs every new platform that comes out.

its funny isnt it....alot of console gamers want loads of extras that PC has as standard (or can easily get)....and now some PC gamers want the fat removed so that there PC can be a lean, mean gaming machine unhampered by bloatware and OS overheads.

I think what would be far more advantageous is if you could simply have boot options for your existing OS, with a bias towards either gaming or productivity. So when you boot, you get an option just as you would with a dual-boot system, but this time for 'Gaming' or 'Business' etc., and depending on your selection the OS only loads exactly what it needs to run that option. So for 'Gaming' it would only load chunks of code necessary to run games, and should theoretically improve performance by trimming off the excess applications/drivers.

If someone developed a brand new Gamer's OS that I had to install separately and do a dual-boot, I probably wouldn't bother with it at all. If, however, they included options for my existing OS to boot streamlined to cope only with games (and do that easily rather than go through system configs by hand) then I would use it.

RobertBowen

I agree with this. An alternate boot for "Gaming" on the existing OS would be much better. But, you'd probably have to indicate what you wanted available and what you didn't want available when in "Gaming" mode. I can see how the install of the application could take care of this, but I can see some non-game developers telling it their program to install everywhere.

What I really wonder though, is whether there'd even be a significant gain for the amount of time and effort it would take to program an alternate "Gaming" boot.