To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"This is just silly and this is why gamers play games and not design operating systems."
I'm also very much into programming, you never know what I'll be doing in a few years :-) .
Oh, and I'm hardly a gamer. I suck at games but I still play them for fun on occasion. I also get good grades in school and I'm doing a fine job of learning how to program independently with nothing more than books. The reason I want a stripped down version of Windows for gaming only is because I can use Linux for everything else, I could get Cadega but that takes a while to become compatible with games and doesn't always get there with some.
"your game get's 100% of the cpu if it's the only thing contending for the cpu"
The other guy replying mentioned the pre-emptive multi-tasking taking away processor time, and I doubt many people use Windows without a firewall and Anti-virus software. I for one don't trust it that much.
"If your system is fast enough to run XP at an acceptable pace your system will not benefit a lick from being "slimmed down""
That only deals with one point, the others being that it would be much more affordable, it would need much fewer Windows updates, it would take a few minutes to install and it would take a fraction of the maintenance. It would also be advantageous to Microsoft since I've met my share of real gamers (or at least far more into gaming than I) who did pirate Windows because they thought the 200$+ CAD price tag for something they only see when starting up or shutting down their computer was too much to pay. If those people could get Windows stripped down to being no more than a game launcher for 25 to 50$ CAD they'd be much more likely to pay for it, and if they still pirated it at least it would only be a stripped down Windows XP that's useless beyond the scope of gaming.




Member since:
2005-07-08
This is just silly and this is why gamers play games and not design operating systems. If you had a properly designed OS then "stripping it down" wouldn't be necessary.
While it may sound stupid at first, your game get's 100% of the cpu if it's the only thing contending for the cpu. Unless something is processing in the background(anti virus, defrag, whatever), every single app on the desktop should be on the wait queue waiting for input(mouse over, mouse click, etc) before it ever even gets an oportunity to use any CPU time ever again.
The other thing that happens is any memory other apps are using is swapped out to the disk and into the swap file where it waits until the program requests that memory again, hence your game should get as much memory as is available to the system. This is of course assumes that haven't done something brilliant like disable the swap file. Unfortunately Windows does a crappy job of managing memory and it's vm system seems(I have no scientific proof) a bit slower than the linux vm system. You could in theory have 80 thousand firefox windows open using 99.9% of all your memory in windows and the only affect it would have on a game is it would take some extra time to copy the memory firefox is using onto the disk and back when the game is done.
If your system is fast enough to run XP at an acceptable pace your system will not benefit a lick from being "slimmed down"