the idea of a "gaming os" running on a graphics card..

[ZPIGS!]

ok, guess work theory time (prob gonna get shot down here, but wth!)


what about building an os that runs on these ever more powerful graphics cards, that bypass the need for a complex and (ahem) 'sophisticated' os that we have now, purely for gaming purposes?

all it would need to do was emulate (if necessary) JUST the environment necessary to run games..only the elements of windows that games use?

when you boot up into "dos" (or what's left of it), you see all your devices, they are connected at the bios level..yet we are outside of windows..why not build an os on this 'bios system' that runs on the graphics card?

please note i'm not talking about any ability to do anything else than just create an environment where every last drop of processing power can be reserved for running the game environment..

i mean, i guess you could even separate the running-on-the-gc side of it and ask wether some sort of gaming os could run on the existing hardware anyway..without or without running on a gc..

pipe dream?!

:whiste:

 

[Paperlantern]

This has already been done... its called a console system. Wii, Xbox... etc. Trying to make an OS that runs on MULTIPLE platforms and a virtualy infinite number of combinations of hardware (Mobos, processors, bus speeds, memory amounts and types, chipsets, sound types), the size of your OS grows praportionally to the point where it might as well be windows.

Personally I think yes... Pipe Dream.

 

[Compman55]

What about 1-2 yrs from now when BIOS is gone and EFI is the new furture?

 

[Modelworks]

It has been done by many people. What you are describing is a winpe boot that has the necessary drivers and runs a single application. A few friends once made a version of Quake3 that was single DVD. Insert DVD on most any pc at boot and start to play. There was nothing to consume extra memory or set up. Worked just like a console in that respect.


You can do the same thing with VHD images if you want. Install windows, remove all services and anything not related to the 1 application or game , install the game, and save it as a vhd. Then when you boot the pc, select that vhd to boot.

 

[ZPIGS!]

This has already been done... its called a console system. Wii, Xbox... etc.

with respect, a console is just an old pc.

Trying to make an OS that runs on MULTIPLE platforms and a virtualy infinite number of combinations of hardware (Mobos, processors, bus speeds, memory amounts and types, chipsets, sound types), the size of your OS grows praportionally to the point where it might as well be windows.

drivers and device specific software can and should be externalised and loaded during installation?

imo hardware manufacturers should and would build to a spec..whatever that spec is?

Personally I think yes... Pipe Dream.

ok thx 🙂

 

[ZPIGS!]

What about 1-2 yrs from now when BIOS is gone and EFI is the new furture?

hmmz, that could make things easier?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface

 

[ZPIGS!]

It has been done by many people. What you are describing is a winpe boot that has the necessary drivers and runs a single application. A few friends once made a version of Quake3 that was single DVD. Insert DVD on most any pc at boot and start to play. There was nothing to consume extra memory or set up. Worked just like a console in that respect.

aah yes, the good old days..

used to boot up into doom like that..used to be so nice running a game from a dos command line, you just know the game is getting 100% of the pc!

You can do the same thing with VHD images if you want. Install windows, remove all services and anything not related to the 1 application or game , install the game, and save it as a vhd. Then when you boot the pc, select that vhd to boot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHD_(file_format)

interesting!

yeah, i guess maybe what i'm saying is can we go back to dos plz?!

hehe 😉

 

[Nothinman]

what about building an os that runs on these ever more powerful graphics cards, that bypass the need for a complex and (ahem) 'sophisticated' os that we have now, purely for gaming purposes?

Isn't that what you'd call the Wii or PS3 OSes?

all it would need to do was emulate (if necessary) JUST the environment necessary to run games..only the elements of windows that games use?

I don't think you realize just how complicated that stuff is. And if you're emulating something that means that you're running something different at a lower level, which would be a waste.

when you boot up into "dos" (or what's left of it), you see all your devices, they are connected at the bios level..yet we are outside of windows..why not build an os on this 'bios system' that runs on the graphics card?

Except that you don't. DOS only supports a very small subset of the hardware out there and going through the BIOS for hardware access is slow. Maybe if you used LinuxBIOS, but you'd still need drivers for all of your hardware.

And I don't see what running on the graphics card would get you besides using GPU cycles to handle OS functions that won't benefit from them. If anything you want a system like the PS3 but not as anemic so it's easier for developers to use.

please note i'm not talking about any ability to do anything else than just create an environment where every last drop of processing power can be reserved for running the game environment..

Except that in order to be competitive the OS would have to do a lot more than just run games. You need networking, storage, wifi, A/V codecs, streaming protocols, etc in order to even match what's currently available.

pipe dream?!

Very yes...

with respect, a console is just an old pc.

With respect, technically, so is any computer. The Xbox just looks more like what your'e used to because MS used largely commodity parts.

 

[ZPIGS!]

Isn't that what you'd call the Wii or PS3 OSes?

the ps3 is an old pc.

i'm talking generally about an much stripped os running games without the m$ overheads..and specifically about running one on the graphics hardware itself..

I don't think you realize just how complicated that stuff is.

quite possibly, but don't be fooled by my good use of da lingo 😛

..And if you're emulating something that means that you're running something different at a lower level, which would be a waste.

nyers, possibly not the best use of the word "emulate"..we're not talking about a complex environment here..

really just access to primary components..

Except that you don't. DOS only supports a very small subset of the hardware out there and going through the BIOS for hardware access is slow. Maybe if you used LinuxBIOS, but you'd still need drivers for all of your hardware.

sure, ofc, but how much of an overhead is that?

remember, generally about running games outside of windows and specifically about doing this ON the graphics hardware..so it's kind of a 2 pronged debate here..

And I don't see what running on the graphics card would get you besides using GPU cycles to handle OS functions that won't benefit from them.

well, gpus are hitting 1ghz nowadays, usually coupled with gddr5 ram (in some cases 2gb!)..i mean how could the additional overheads do more than tickle a 5970?!

oh, and you could do away with the x86 mobo..

If anything you want a system like the PS3 but not as anemic so it's easier for developers to use.

for sure developing is vitally important, but i have a ps3 and i dont see it as "anemic"..sure it chugs with many objects and much environmental activity (smoke etc) on screen, but it seems work well for me..gta4 + the episodes were a blast!

(but i'm a pc gamer..)

Except that in order to be competitive the OS would have to do a lot more than just run games. You need networking, storage, wifi, A/V codecs, streaming protocols, etc in order to even match what's currently available.

ofc, these things are required, but it wouldn't have to load everything else, that's the point..

Very yes...

thank you for your feedback 🙂

With respect, technically, so is any computer.

any old computer, yes.

i run a 5850 with an X25M-G2 and an x-fi..let me know when a console has that sort of gear in it 😛

The Xbox just looks more like what your'e used to because MS used largely commodity parts.

again, an old pc!

 

[Nothinman]

the ps3 is an old pc.

i'm talking generally about an much stripped os running games without the m$ overheads..and specifically about running one on the graphics hardware itself..

And every console out there meets that requirement, minus the running on the graphics card itself because there's no real gains to be had from that. You think the PS3 or Wii boots up Windows or some other general purpose OS before starting a game?

nyers, possibly not the best use of the word "emulate"..we're not talking about a complex environment here..

really just access to primary components..

Actually we are because developers need libraries to code against. No one wants to go back to the shitty days of DOS where you had to code for direct hardware access. Developers want libraries like DirectX, OpenGL, SDL, etc to write against so they get the most exposure for the least amount of work.

sure, ofc, but how much of an overhead is that?

remember, generally about running games outside of windows and specifically about doing this ON the graphics hardware..so it's kind of a 2 pronged debate here..

My phone runs Linux and the PS3 already runs Linux, I doubt the overhead involved is a problem. And I don't get why running on the graphics card is important, if anything that's backwards because you want the GPU time uncontested so the game runs smoothly.

well, gpus are hitting 1ghz nowadays, usually coupled with gddr5 ram (in some cases 2gb!)..i mean how could the additional overheads do more than tickle a 5970?!

oh, and you could do away with the x86 mobo..

I don't see how that matters. Having a general purpose CPU in the thing to run the OS adds minimal cost and seems more than worth it considering the alternatives.

And I think the XBox is the only x86 one out there since MS just had to use Windows and has neglected their non-x86 ports for so long. The PS3 and WII are both PPC already.

for sure developing is vitally important, but i have a ps3 and i dont see it as "anemic"..sure it chugs with many objects and much environmental activity (smoke etc) on screen, but it seems work well for me..gta4 + the episodes were a blast!

(but i'm a pc gamer..)

I meant from a developer standpoint. Overall the PS3 should kill the Xbox, but because of the limited memory and such it's a lot more work for developers to get those results. Just look at the first generation games on the PS2 and compare them to the last line of games right before the PS3 came out, the difference is astounding. If Sony had made the PS2 and PS3 easy enough to get games to look like the last generation the XBox would've fell flat on it's face right off the line.

ofc, these things are required, but it wouldn't have to load everything else, that's the point..

What everything else? An XBox or PS3 already only loads what's necessary for the game.

any old computer, yes.

i run a 5850 with an X25M-G2 and an x-fi..let me know when a console has that sort of gear in it 😛


again, an old pc!

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You can't turn a general purpose PC into a console without a lot of work and at that point you might as well just buy a console...

 

[MJinZ]

It would not work unless your GPU also had a CPU on it.

The reason being that GPUs mostly accelerate graphics rendering, Physics now and some other limited types of processes while a CPU can do a lot more - and necessarily so because a game is now very often about an interactive world of AIs, interactions, constantly changing variables that peg your Quad core to its max.

It's no wonder that many games are more limited by CPUs than GPUs these days.

 

[Modelworks]

aah yes, the good old days..

used to boot up into doom like that..used to be so nice running a game from a dos command line, you just know the game is getting 100% of the pc!

You can do this with any modern game title. You effectively remove anything from windows the game does not need making it application specific rather than a general os.

There are some versions of xp people have made that do this for gaming. Usually titled something like XP gaming edition. They are stripped down to the core so that the almost all resources are dedicated to the game.
You can use the nlite program to make your own
http://www.nliteos.com/

 

[Nothinman]

You can do this with any modern game title. You effectively remove anything from windows the game does not need making it application specific rather than a general os.

There are some versions of xp people have made that do this for gaming. Usually titled something like XP gaming edition. They are stripped down to the core so that the almost all resources are dedicated to the game.
You can use the nlite program to make your own
http://www.nliteos.com/

Which is a lot of work for very little gain...

 

[Modelworks]

Which is a lot of work for very little gain...

True but for some people already running borderline hardware it can help some. I saw one xp install that was only 69MB in size and when installed consumed less than 200MB for the OS and all services.
It had problems with any application except the one it was designed for though.

 

[Nothinman]

True but for some people already running borderline hardware it can help some. I saw one xp install that was only 69MB in size and when installed consumed less than 200MB for the OS and all services.
It had problems with any application except the one it was designed for though.

With "some" being the key word. Spending the extra cash on another gig or so of memory is going to be a lot less work and help a lot more.

 

[ZPIGS!]

In a single compute node of a multi-node cluster, Buck explained, "OS integration continually challenges how a GPU is a coprocessor to the CPU. How does that boil down into a basic operating system responsibility, now that there's two kinds of processors in the system?" Buck had a few ideas about how that node-level CPU/GPU communication might be improved: "Scheduling, preemption, virtual memory — [Nvidia CEO] Jen-Hsun hinted at some of that stuff in his keynote."

Buck also discussed simplification of the CUDA programming model: "If we integrate the GPU and its memory and its scheduling more with the CPU," he said, "we can get simplifiction for optimization for the programming model which will make it easier to move code onto the GPU — and we will be doing that in future releases of CUDA."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/23/ian_buck_at_gtc/

 

[ZPIGS!]

And every console out there meets that requirement, minus the running on the graphics card itself because there's no real gains to be had from that. You think the PS3 or Wii boots up Windows or some other general purpose OS before starting a game?

no, i don't. i'm talking about the hardware.

Actually we are because developers need libraries to code against. No one wants to go back to the shitty days of DOS where you had to code for direct hardware access. Developers want libraries like DirectX, OpenGL, SDL, etc to write against so they get the most exposure for the least amount of work.

well, this is where a basic gaming os would come in..

My phone runs Linux and the PS3 already runs Linux, I doubt the overhead involved is a problem.

less is more.

And I don't get why running on the graphics card is important, if anything that's backwards because you want the GPU time uncontested so the game runs smoothly.

well, imho, cpu's have hit a plateau. toms hardware regularly says if you're running one gc you don't need more than a i5..

..and gpu development is red hot..they are already hitting 1ghz..with reduced die size, more and better ram, imho the gc is practically a computer in itself..hence the premise for this thread!

I don't see how that matters. Having a general purpose CPU in the thing to run the OS adds minimal cost and seems more than worth it considering the alternatives.

nothing m$ is "minimal cost"!

the os that you speak of is designed to do many, many things..most of which are irrelevent to gaming..this is the point..

I meant from a developer standpoint. Overall the PS3 should kill the Xbox, but because of the limited memory and such it's a lot more work for developers to get those results. Just look at the first generation games on the PS2 and compare them to the last line of games right before the PS3 came out, the difference is astounding.

sure, but that's more to do with people becoming accostomed to programming methods and ways..after a while you simply get to learn what's best to do and what's not best to do..

What everything else? An XBox or PS3 already only loads what's necessary for the game.

..and this is what i'd like for the pc!

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. You can't turn a general purpose PC into a console without a lot of work and at that point you might as well just buy a console...

unless you design an os that runs on the gc..from the ground up, not from WXP or W7 downwards..

..and that's what this thread is about..

 

[ZPIGS!]

It would not work unless your GPU also had a CPU on it.

The reason being that GPUs mostly accelerate graphics rendering, Physics now and some other limited types of processes while a CPU can do a lot more - and necessarily so because a game is now very often about an interactive world of AIs, interactions, constantly changing variables that peg your Quad core to its max.

It's no wonder that many games are more limited by CPUs than GPUs these days.

my Q9400 is never maxed out, not even by bad company2?

..and this is running at 1920x1200 high detail..

 

[ZPIGS!]

..also don't forget that multi-cpu cards will be coming more normal in the future..the 5970 is a beast!

 

[ZPIGS!]

You can do this with any modern game title. You effectively remove anything from windows the game does not need making it application specific rather than a general os.

There are some versions of xp people have made that do this for gaming. Usually titled something like XP gaming edition. They are stripped down to the core so that the almost all resources are dedicated to the game.
You can use the nlite program to make your own
http://www.nliteos.com/

yeah, that's one way of getting a better windows gaming environment for sure..

 

[Nothinman]

no, i don't. i'm talking about the hardware.

Which is pretty much commodity these days, the software is more important and will likely become more and more important as runtimes like .Net become more popular.

well, this is where a basic gaming os would come in..

And we already have those on every console in existence.

less is more.

Agreed, which is why I don't run Windows. But you still have to have an OS and set of libraries and APIs for developers to code against. No one wants to go back to the bad old days of DOS.

well, imho, cpu's have hit a plateau. toms hardware regularly says if you're running one gc you don't need more than a i5..

..and gpu development is red hot..they are already hitting 1ghz..with reduced die size, more and better ram, imho the gc is practically a computer in itself..hence the premise for this thread!

And I'd bet that GPUs hit a plateau soon too for the same reasons that CPUs have. But the thing is that in order for your idea to work you'd need the GPU to have all of the capabilities of a CPU as well and by combining them you'll be creating a single point for bottlenecks and failures. Using the GPU to accelerate things makes sense, but removing the CPU and tacking it's workload onto the GPU as well doesn't.

nothing m$ is "minimal cost"!

Sure lots of things are, if you look at them subjectively.

the os that you speak of is designed to do many, many things..most of which are irrelevent to gaming..this is the point..

But most of those things can either be disabled or aren't loaded until you try to do one of those many things. Yes, Windows is pretty huge these days but you're not going to gain much, if any, performance by removing things like IE.

And the trend seems to be in the opposite direction, with consoles adding more and more features and becoming a lot more than just a gaming system.

sure, but that's more to do with people becoming accostomed to programming methods and ways..after a while you simply get to learn what's best to do and what's not best to do..

Maybe a bit, but a complicated system is a complicated system. If you give one guy a copy of VS.Net and another a Java compiler and notepad and ask them both to write a simple app which do you think is going to finish first? The former by a long shot because the development environment is so much better regardless of the language.

..and this is what i'd like for the pc!

And I'd like my Cobalt to double as a rally racer, but that's just not going to happen.

unless you design an os that runs on the gc..from the ground up, not from WXP or W7 downwards..

..and that's what this thread is about..

I.e. a console OS. The reason Windows is so popular for games is because it's so popular for everything else. If you introduce a special gaming OS it'll never go anywhere, you might as well just target Linux or OS X. No one is going to want to reboot into your special OS just to play a game, the tradeoffs just aren't worth it.

NLite is pretty much your only option and the amount of work required is definitely not worth the little performance gains you might achieve.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

..and gpu development is red hot..they are already hitting 1ghz..with reduced die size, more and better ram, imho the gc is practically a computer in itself..hence the premise for this thread!

GPGPU is hardly a magic bullet that will solve any performance problem. It's extremely good for a few things, floating point and embarrassingly parallel aplications, but it's also very bad at other like running a os.

..also don't forget that multi-cpu cards will be coming more normal in the future..the 5970 is a beast!

In a way all modern gpu's are mufti core, nvidia has even shown this by calling their stream processors "Cuda cores".