I want an Linux Gamer OS!

[perzy]

I'm not a Linux expert, so forgive me if I'm far out here.

I'm conviced that it is possible to run games much faster (=better fps) with the same hardware if the OS is optimized for it.

SP3 for XP is rumored to do just that.

Vista has lifted the graphics drivers out of the core, which makes for a big fps loss, but still manages to be almost as good as xp. That to me says that the OS is likea brake on my games.

Why not a Linux gameOS for ultimate performance?

/Hit me

 

[Nothinman]

I'm conviced that it is possible to run games much faster (=better fps) with the same hardware if the OS is optimized for it.

I'm not. There are some things that can be done but you're still mostly limited by hardware and driver speeds. Well you could start removing features that potentially affect performance but you'll end up with an embedded OS similar to the ones on consoles with the inability to do most other things that you use your computer for.

Why not a Linux gameOS for ultimate performance?

Because you're still at the mercy of AMD/ATI and nVidia since their drivers will be the main software bottleneck. And even that's less of an issue these days with dual and quad core machines being so popular.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I'm conviced that it is possible to run games much faster (=better fps) with the same hardware if the OS is optimized for it.

I'm not. There are some things that can be done but you're still mostly limited by hardware and driver speeds. Well you could start removing features that potentially affect performance but you'll end up with an embedded OS similar to the ones on consoles with the inability to do most other things that you use your computer for.

Why not a Linux gameOS for ultimate performance?

Because you're still at the mercy of AMD/ATI and nVidia since their drivers will be the main software bottleneck. And even that's less of an issue these days with dual and quad core machines being so popular.

I can't say I'm entirely opposed to the idea of an independent gaming environment, where the game could be positive that it and only it has direct, complete and total access to the hardware, as long as it was optional.

 

[Nothinman]

I can't say I'm entirely opposed to the idea of an independent gaming environment, where the game could be positive that it and only it has direct, complete and total access to the hardware, as long as it was optional.

But that would require a completely separate OS so you'd need either another installation to reboot into in order to play or a game that runs directly from the disc.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I can't say I'm entirely opposed to the idea of an independent gaming environment, where the game could be positive that it and only it has direct, complete and total access to the hardware, as long as it was optional.

But that would require a completely separate OS so you'd need either another installation to reboot into in order to play or a game that runs directly from the disc.

Not necessarily. A modified form of hibernation, where the "desktop state" is saved to disk, built into windows could do the trick. A clever enough system could even begin to load the game as the file is written to disk, making it almost entirely unintrusive. The only thing you'd lose is the ability to alt-tab and use AIM or a browser. 😛

 

[BD2003]

FWIW, I dont think itll ever happen. Optimization is usually the last priority of PC devs, because unlike consoles, you can always just throw money (YOUR money) at the problem. Theres nothing that a faster CPU, GPU and more memory can't do to alleviate any and all overheard the OS might present.

 

[Nothinman]

The only thing you'd lose is the ability to alt-tab and use AIM or a browser.

Which is the killer. I used to hibernate Linux when I wanted to play a game in Windows but it's a huge PITA so that drive has been sitting on the floor for months now.

 

[perzy]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I'm conviced that it is possible to run games much faster (=better fps) with the same hardware if the OS is optimized for it.

I'm not. There are some things that can be done but you're still mostly limited by hardware and driver speeds. Well you could start removing features that potentially affect performance but you'll end up with an embedded OS similar to the ones on consoles with the inability to do most other things that you use your computer for.

Why not a Linux gameOS for ultimate performance?

Because you're still at the mercy of AMD/ATI and nVidia since their drivers will be the main software bottleneck. And even that's less of an issue these days with dual and quad core machines being so popular.

Well I guess you are absolutely right there. It's about what nvida and AMD wants to support...
But still, it annoys me to think that Win XP is using my harware resources badly (not so effeciently) . The optimizations that has been done to Vista to make it nearly as fast as XP could be implemented in XP too I'm sure. But MS wants people to use Vista instead.

I have friends that are Linux experts, who dualboots into XP and play some shooter action once in a while, just to relax.
Everybody playes games now, there is no shame in it. (It's better than just being a couch potato in front of the TV!)
Why no make a real gaming OS ?

 

[Nothinman]

The optimizations that has been done to Vista to make it nearly as fast as XP could be implemented in XP too I'm sure. But MS wants people to use Vista instead.

You're sure?

Everybody playes games now, there is no shame in it. (It's better than just being a couch potato in front of the TV!)
Why no make a real gaming OS ?

I'm not so sure about the latter point, but there are already "real gaming OS"es, they're in the firmware on your gaming console. Any performance difference that you might get by removing parts of Windows would almost undoubtedly fall into the statistical noise of any benchmark. The benefit, if any, just isn't worth the amount of work and loss of functionality.

 

[stash]

The optimizations that has been done to Vista to make it nearly as fast as XP could be implemented in XP too I'm sure

At a huge cost, and when it was completed, you would have Vista with the Luna theme. There is zero incentive for Microsoft to do this. It would make zero sense in the market as well. You would have two virtually identical operating systems, with different names. You think having all the versions of Vista is confusing, try adding a version of "XP" that is really just another version of Vista.