OS designed and built just for Il-2?? Why not?

[oilman]

Been experimenting with W10 lately. And over the last decade with various forms of Linux. I have to say apart from not being able to (easily) play my favourite games I like Lubuntu and Ubuntu a lot. But keep a HD with XP on it just for playing games. 

 

But as I tried to navigate my way through the nightmare that is W10 last night, I had a thought. Wouldn't the world be a perfect place if someone made an OS specifically for playing our PC games on. Nothing else.... except maybe a web browser. Maybe if the design teams at Ubi or any one of the big game designers had a department just for building and optimising an OS for gaming....... 

 

I suppose everyone will come back with "just buy a console" you looser. 

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, oilman said:

Wouldn't the world be a perfect place if someone made an OS specifically for playing our PC games on.

If it was just remotely useful for having decent control over scheduling threads over cores, you'd be served. But you're not getting that. And that is why in the HPC scene they won't touch Windows even with a stick.

[SCG_ErwinP]

Why not?

Because 99% of people will not to paid to have 2 computers (1 just for games and another one to do all of other things that a PC do);

Because is expensive to build (especially a OS);

Because a will be needed worker to supporting the OS when a issue (not directly with OS) was found;

Because a lot of people will use a software that break the licencing;

Because of a lot of other things not mentioned here!

 

I will not tell you to buy a console but this topic is a dead discution, nobody will care about it. Pray for me to be wrong!

[AndyJWest]

See SteamOS:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SteamOS

 

 

[ZachariasX]

22 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

See SteamOS:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SteamOS

 

That is an OS for not paying MS royalties. It can run games though.

[Dutch2]

18 minutes ago, 3./JG15_HansPhilipp said:

Why not?

Because 99% of people will not to paid to have 2 computers (1 just for games and another one to do all of other things that a PC do);

Because is expensive to build (especially a OS);

Because a will be needed worker to supporting the OS when a issue (not directly with OS) was found;

Because a lot of people will use a software that break the licencing;

Because of a lot of other things not mentioned here!

 

I will not tell you to buy a console but this topic is a dead discution, nobody will care about it. Pray for me to be wrong!

 

I have one PC that does contain 3 SSD that do have each a Win10 home or pro. So one PC is sufficiënt

Windows does have “smaller” versions like S, LTSC, mobile or R, nothing went wrong inhere, no break of licencing, or whatever. Only dedicated to their own task. 

 

The whole point is to make an Windows that is lean & basic, no bloatware, no telemetric, no virusscanner, no firewall or wathever. This all can be done, only onlike XP and Vista the Win10 is so improved that all the tweaks and making win10 leaner have only an limited effect. Like deleting all the apps as a sample, reliefs your SSD space but you will not see any improvement in game performance. The great MS-service tweaker Blackviper admit his MSservice-shutdown has only a small impact, same opinion from Eric at his Tweakhound website. Somewere on the internet a guy did make Win10 lite, he also did stop his project, because it did bring nothing. 

 

 

 

[AndyJWest]

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

That is an OS for not paying MS royalties. It can run games though.

 

You think that Linux was developed 'for not paying MS royalties'?

[wellenbrecher]

1 hour ago, oilman said:

Maybe if the design teams at Ubi or any one of the big game designers had a department just for building and optimising an OS for gaming....... 

UbiSoft, EA, ActivisionBlizzard and Take2 are doing their utmost best to push the legal limit as to what is allowed in screwing over their customers, inching into previous taboo areas of monetisation year after year. Why on earth would you trust them to make an OS that beenfits the user??

Edited February 12, 2019 by wellenbrecher

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

You think that Linux was developed 'for not paying MS royalties'?

No, but Steam and many many others conventently use it because of that. I wouldn't know of any specialized scheduling used for Steam OS and its games, as present on HPC Linux. I guess it would require the games being coded in a different way, and no one is gonna do that. If you are developping across platforms, that puts some limits to what is reasonable to do.

 

Anyway, wasn't being that serious.

[Guest deleted@134347]

Yes. Such platforms are called Consoles. ?  And the reason is if you want this 'customer OS' to run without a hitch (relatively speaking), and require a light support model you absolutely must lock in to a specific tested/verified/unmodifiable hardware. If you don't you'll end up with another 'simple' OS that will get abandoned due to incompatibility and support issues. ?

 

XKCD: