|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
XORDYH
Joined: 01 Jun 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:28 pm |
  |
|
| The problem with Vista (or any OS) as an OS for gaming is that it _is_ an OS. What we really need is just a thin kernel that provides a standard API to the hardware, so that games don't have to compete with anything for system resources. I would rather boot into that for my games, and have a separate, full-featured OS for everything else, rather than try to balance tuning a general OS for both gaming and non-gaming tasks. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
XORDYH
Joined: 01 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:03 pm |
|
|
| Mac OS X, while not a true microkernel architecture, is quite close. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
XORDYH
Joined: 01 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:29 pm |
|
|
| Toptube wrote: |
| ...every new OS uses more ram, more resources... |
Mac OS X 10.4 used demonstratively less resources than 10.3 when it shipped, due to some re-architecting of the core system. I'm sure this isn't the only example either.
I don't think we should be settling for this assumption that every new OS has to use more resources, simply because there are assumed to be more resources available in newer machines. Of all the OS pedigrees out there, Windows has been the worst at requiring more and more for each new version, and without easy ways to turn features off to better manage limited resources when necessary or prudent.
Regardless, I am glad to see that the new video requirements of Vista are prompting system manufacturers to finally start including better graphics hardware in all systems, even their low end models and laptops. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
