PDA

View Full Version : OpenGL Game OS



uzu_manga
10-22-2002, 03:18 AM
How about building a new game os? An OS only built to play games on. Using OpenSource and all that stuff. Outperforming both Windows and Linux in framerate... Then implementing a "directx" look alike media library and opengl. Making it easy for developers to build games for this os... anyone feeling up to it?

GLCoder
10-22-2002, 03:45 AM
i think it is not neccessary because of windows... and there is also beos?

vincoof
10-22-2002, 04:05 AM
There already exists gaming consoles which merely does that. And if you want something in the middle between consoles and PCs, there is the XBox.
Though either way there is not really OpenGL.

uzu_manga
10-22-2002, 04:26 AM
Sure there are working platforms... but have anyone of you heard about TCPA? That **** will kill the free gamedevelope market! You can't run your home made game on windows (in the future(say 4 years)) without a special encrypted serial from microsoft. And that sux... and please don't tell me that anyone of you can program software for the XBOX. And now I'm talking about real programming. Sure there are always leaked versions of Xbox XDK, and mod chip. But give me a break!

ToolChest
10-22-2002, 05:46 AM
According to this the TCPA will be in the hardware… your os wont even work…
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Btw: the leaked xdk wont help, TCPA wont let you use it…

[This message has been edited by john_at_kbs_is (edited 10-22-2002).]

uzu_manga
10-22-2002, 06:36 AM
If you can't develope your own OS with the new TCPA hardware, then what whould happend to the unix world. And what about old versions of windows ... wouldn't it be possible to run them on new computers? A new game OS or similar is the only way to keep free gamedevelopment alive... TCPA will kill it.

Humus
10-22-2002, 06:42 AM
I have a better suggestion. Make sure that TCPA stuff never happends.

[This message has been edited by Humus (edited 10-22-2002).]

ToolChest
10-22-2002, 06:45 AM
That’s what the article was about... no free software and no freedom... don’t worry the US government will never allow anything that infringes so heavily on personal privacy and capitalism to slide...

Humus
10-22-2002, 09:08 AM
I wouldn't be too sure about that so long as people don't raise their voice about it. Unfortunately way too few people know anything about it. I didn't know anything about it until just a few days ago. Quite scary stuff actually.

Gorg
10-22-2002, 10:07 AM
There have been quite a lot of talk about that on slashdot, and also what companies, government and people are trying to do to stop it.

Simply look at the archives. And and don't forget to keep complaining about this crap!

zeckensack
10-22-2002, 10:15 AM
That's a job for US citizens really. I'm not in any postition to start bullying the US congress.

Oh and btw: they really should have broken MS in court. Those sick bastards.

zen
10-22-2002, 11:03 AM
Wow! I have always dreamed of this.A CPU with a built in Police-Department-Unit(PDU (tm)).Finally someone will stop all those crazed,anti-social kids from writing their own software thus stealing money from great,nice,big companies.
The day people support this kind of thing by paying for crippled CPUs is the day I'll lose the last bit of faith in the human race.Of course I'd be rather surprised if enough humans capable of thought can be scraped together to stop it from happening.Especially if you rely on the US(or any other) government to do it for you...

zeckensack
10-22-2002, 11:26 AM
Let me translate a post I recently made, summarizing my vision of TCPA *cough* enhanced future:

- hobbyist programming is made impossible (because self made programs can never be certified)
->freeware dies
->nobody will be able to even learn programming
->new programmers have to be trained from zero in bulk certified corporations, instead of learning the trade at home/school/university

-the games industry dies
->the hardware industry dies
->the remaining software industry dies
->voila, the PC industry is dead

*sarcasm on*
->Micros~1 dies a few years later, without third party virus scanners their glorified typewriter/outburst excess/color monitor becomes unusable

-thirty years from now we'll be working with abaci, pencil and paper
-forty years from now the TCPA will be scrapped
-42 years from now the first general purpose PCs will ship
-65 years from now the PC industry will be back at the early nineties level


Exxtreme's reply:
You could still code programs if the IDE comes with kind of a virtual machine or sandbox to run them. Your code would run in the VM without affecting the rest of the system.

My reply:
Affecting the rest of the system?
Like reading, creating or even modifying files?
Accessing networks?
Accessing hardware directly? Ok, this one I can live without, but aren't hardware drivers supposed to only serve certified apps?

Hello World ... great.

knackered
10-22-2002, 12:30 PM
Next you'll be telling me pens have been banned.
Don't worry about it - it will never happen, because if it did then India would become the new silicon valley, and I hardly think the american economy could stand that.

josip
10-22-2002, 01:03 PM
As someone already pointed out, slashdot has been discussing TCPA and trusted computing for a while.

Just today, the topic popped up where RMS discusses the potential ramifications. Check it under the topic:

Your Rights Online: RMS Urges Opposition to "Trusted Computing"

zen
10-22-2002, 02:25 PM
Still although something like this will propably not happen it is rather interesting(rather frightening) to see what hopes some people have for computers.And a watered down or otherwise mutated version of this 'virus' might be viable in the future.

WhatEver
10-22-2002, 06:44 PM
There's nothing to worry about. Crippling us like that would effect the computer industry to much. We are the computer industry, and if push comes to shove, we win because they don't profit without us http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif.

uzu_manga
10-22-2002, 09:30 PM
Then why don't we completely change the entire game indutry, we all knows that the prices for good (and very often BAD) games are way to high. If we are the developers of games for that industri doesn't the power resides in our hands, I say: Build a new game OS. Gamers shouldn't have to pay enourmous amount of money for OS license, just to be able to run the already outragious overprices games. Developers today UNITE! And lower the cost, it's doable! Trust me! What's realy needed is that WE create great international games, maybe not for free ( could need money for food and stuff ). But way lower than today, a brand new game for 20$ sounds resonable to me. Unite people, and banish the shadows that threaten games all over the world.
UNITE!

rapso
10-22-2002, 10:48 PM
"That’s what the article was about... no free software and no freedom... don’t worry the US government will never allow anything that infringes so heavily on personal privacy and capitalism to slide..."

if I were you, I wouldn't be that sure. the US Goverment has a backdoor to all PCs with TCPA, the USA will even controll the Internet, why shouldn't they support TCPA?

I think I'll use linux with a VIA C3 cpu, where I can further code my small opengl-engines and there will be much more people who will chose the freedom... but the rest (the stupid little people, them who buys a 1.7Ghz P4 'cause it has more Mhz than a Athlon 1.5Ghz) will support the TCPA with their supermarked-pcs

and the only way to make them think about this, is to say "hey, you won't be able to copy any game and any other software, if you use an M$-Os"... it's pore, isn't it?

rapso->greets();

LaBasX2
10-22-2002, 11:57 PM
Yes, a free game OS for PCs would be a cool thing. No multitasking overhead, no unneeded drivers loaded thus all the performance for your game. You don't need a common GUI, so that will save much ressources again. And you could even make it a safe system since games usually don't need much access to the system components. That's all done by opengl and the dx-like game api. But I guess that it is a bit of work to get your own OS working...a bit too much work probably http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

LaBasX2

zen
10-23-2002, 01:11 AM
A gameoriented OS doesn't need to be built from scratch.We could smiply take the linux kernel,remove all the useless drivers(like HAM for instance) fiddle with the scheduling to make it more generous towards certain processes(the games of course) with priorities(allready implemented),bigger quanta,etc. ,edit the initscripts so that only the absolutely necessary deamons,etc. are loaded and there you have it.Oh yeah you'll have to find a cool name too.That can be a little harder. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif
But I don't see how that would help us to make a revolution in the computer games world.Maybe it would be better to create some sort of organization,get a few coders/artists who _want_ to create games and do it.We'd have to find some way of bypassing all those publishing companies and actually sell the games at a nice price.But then again coordination and management might prve difficult...

uzu_manga
10-23-2002, 02:44 AM
To LaBasX2 and zen, and eyeryone else out there.
Yes a whole OS dedicated to games are surely a thing for the future. Then we create a special "license" GPL sort of. Not allowing any overpriced games to run. But would anyone build games for such OS? If you gain speed and fps... with out a doubt. The problem is that I'm a game developer, I do the design of the game, story , characters , stuff like that. Sure I do know how to write c++, and I know what an bitch ASM could be. But that's far from enough to write a whole OS. What's needed are professional OpenSource programmers with knowledge enough to write this OS. Me and my team of dedicated developers would without delays write a version of our current RPG for that OS. And yes we have made a deal with the publisher so our game "Sion", will be sold for a price around 20$. Let's bring the large companies on there knees...

GeLeTo
10-23-2002, 04:14 AM
Remember Indrema? One of their goals was to create a Linux based gaming OS. I think they released an SDK at some time.


Originally posted by uzu_manga:
Then we create a special "license" GPL sort of. Not allowing any overpriced games to run. <SNIP>... Let's bring the large companies on there knees...

The success of any gaming platform/OS depends on having those "large companies" porting their "overpriced games" to that platform.

ToolChest
10-23-2002, 04:26 AM
Then we create a special "license" GPL sort of. Not allowing any overpriced games to run.

Or we could create a hardware chip that only allows cheap "trusted" games to be run... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

How is that any different that what you are combating? Every one wants to be in control, but no one wants to be controlled…

ToolChest
10-23-2002, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by rapso:
"That’s what the article was about... no free software and no freedom... don’t worry the US government will never allow anything that infringes so heavily on personal privacy and capitalism to slide..."

if I were you, I wouldn't be that sure. the US Goverment has a backdoor to all PCs with TCPA, the USA will even controll the Internet, why shouldn't they support TCPA?


See knackered's point... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

Nakoruru
10-23-2002, 04:56 AM
What scheduling overhead? All the os processes running on a Windows or Linux machine are idle almost 100 percent of the time. This means that they use 0 cpu! If a game wants 100 percent of the CPU, then it pretty much has it 100 percent of the time and only ever lets it go if there is another process like it which is actually running (why would you run SETI@Home while playing a game?) or if it makes a system call (which actually makes the system run faster because the CPU can do something else while waiting for IO).

Please learn how OS scheduling works. People who do not understand it are the ones who do things like write SETI@Home like apps (apps which use lots of CPU) and set the priority to the highest it can go. These people do not understand that even set at the lowest priority, a SETI@Home will get 100 percent of the CPU if it is the only program not idle. So, all setting it to highest priority does is make everything ELSE on the system run poorly.

Windows is the best gaming OS on PCs because it has not only the technology, but the actual market of people who go to Babbages to buy games. Who cares about performance when no one even hears about your game?

You people really need to read up on the TCPA! It is not designed to protect the system by keeping programs from running, it does so by protecting programs from each other. It is more like a firewall which keeps other programs from messing with your data if you choose to, including the OS. Any programmer can take advantage of it to create protected information which only the program can access.

A person with any thought process at all in their heads will realize that the Windows platform is what it is because there are millions (MILLIONS!) of programs written for it by everyone and his dog. Why would anyone suddenly decide that it is time for that to end? (HINT: It is not!). Not only is it stupid, but it is a blatant violation of antitrust law.

I am not saying so much about the TCPA as I am about the insane amount of misinformation in this thread. Go find some actual essays on the TCPA, especially a technical one that actually explains how it works.

Please do not let a love of paranoia and conspiracy make you start believing that people are going to do something as blantantly moronic as try to sell a PC that will not run any of the millions of existing programs already made available in the past 20 years since the introduction of the PC.

Think!

ToolChest
10-23-2002, 05:40 AM
Nakoruru,

I think the concerns (at least for me) are the “trusted” issues. The hardware can prevent software from running and guess what you’re not in control of the hardware. The hardware (supposedly) goes out to see if you’re allowed to run the software and to see if you’re allowed to open a particular file. I’m not into the government, Microsoft, or anyone invading my privacy, if I’m downloading porn and writing a book that’s my business, no one else’s. The biggest issue is that I read that (don’t know if its true) this magical device will delete files that you’re not supposed to have. Ok, I decide what files I’m allowed to have, if the FBI wants to waste the money arresting me for an unreleased Sneaker Pimps mp3 while some whack job is picking people off in DC, fine, but I’ll be d*mned (don’t know if this board blocks profanity) if some jack *ss at the record company is going to do it…

John.

zeckensack
10-23-2002, 05:59 AM
I don't care about warez meltdown. Or the end of mp3 sharing. These are non-issue to me. But that's not what TCPA is about.

And to the "the american government surely wouldn't allow such a thing" people: there is such a thing as the DMCA, remember? And the TCPA/Palladium thing is also already signed. See Micros~1 press releases.

And to the "let's make our own OS" people: Non-certified OSes won't even boot. Period.

You're all a little late in the game.

This is the beginning of the end.

ToolChest
10-23-2002, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by zeckensack:
Non-certified OSes won't even boot. Period.

You're all a little late in the game.

This is the beginning of the end.

Sorry I didn't realize that Sun, SGI, and AMD all signed up as well... oh, wait they didn't... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

zeckensack
10-23-2002, 06:37 AM
AMD did.

[edit]
TCPA homepage: http://www.trustedcomputing.org/

Partner list (PDF): http://www.trustedcomputing.org/docs/TCPA111999REL.pdf


[edit2]
And I don't see how SGI/Sun would matter. Sun doesn't make x86 hardware themselves. But Solaris/x86 would still have to be certified to run (if it is even still maintained).

SGI is just like Dell. You buy/resell x86 hardware, you have TCPA.

Keep in mind that this Palladium stuff redefines the x86 PC platform to incorporate this tripe in hardware. There will be no way around OS/software certification.

[This message has been edited by zeckensack (edited 10-23-2002).]

[This message has been edited by zeckensack (edited 10-23-2002).]

EG
10-23-2002, 07:12 AM
> [...] There will be no way around OS/software certification.

hmm... judgeing by the record of the companies involved, I'm not afraid of there being no way around, I'm rather afraid of proggies using a way around (willingly, or through bugs) and then, f.i., sabotaging your certificates. The manufacturer return would be the only solution to get it running again...

None, *none*, of the consumer, government or big-company sponsored security technologies has proven "secure", from DVDs to Playstations, from Clipper chips to Bluetooth, or WinXP to Oracle.
As soon as they were announced "secure", they were breached (if not before) and a never ending stream of flaws uncovered.

Finally, security built into the hardware can't be patched.

zeckensack
10-23-2002, 07:45 AM
Since when is this about security? I tell you it's not. That's what uncle Bill will try to tell you but so far he has failed to bring up a valid example.

This is a system designed specifically to the purpose of preventing code from running, on a per-application certificate basis. How can this improve security? Say, Outlook gets certified and still stupidly executes every vb script it can get its hands on. Your freeware virus/worm scanner won't run anymore, because certification costs money. Did security just increase? IMO no. The opposite is true.

Document Encryption/decryption is mentioned in the context but really doesn't require TCPA at all. Neither do secure network sessions.

All that TCPA has to offer is more cost and less choice for users. And it's already too late to unmake it. Cheers.

ToolChest
10-23-2002, 08:28 AM
Zeckensack,

Ok, I read the faqs and models at: http://www.trustedcomputing.org/ …

I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t… Anyway the docs were only about security, online transactions,… how are they going to stop software from running, I must be missing something…

zen
10-23-2002, 08:42 AM
Nakoruru:it's funny how you can deduct that someone doesn't know about multitasking/timesharing(or OS in general) from a few lines...Anyway besides the fact that there's not only the overhead of other processes running(wich might be needed in a game OS too) but also of the time spent in kernelspace every n ms(usually n=10ms) and of the context switches wich are needed every time the to-be-run process changes.But I do not disagree with you that all this might be negligible,that is I don't disagree because I haven't looked into it yet but if you would design a gamespecific OS,which I didn't propose and which purpose wouldn't be eliminating overhead(just read previous posts),well if you would design such an OS wouldn't you tune the scheduling with respect to its specific goal?Would you just implement general purpose scheduling.I just said that an OS can be made from a tailored Linux kernel and that I don't think it would be of much help.
As for the GNU-like license,I also disagree.I don't see much freedom in forcing someone to be gnu-compatible in order to use your 'free' product.
And regarding TCPA,a CPU(the computer actaully) is a tool,it's purpose is to execute specific instructions wich the tool user provides.Anything less than that,no matter how 'well ment'(!) in order to 'protect me'(again !),is not acceptable (by me at least).

mattc
10-23-2002, 10:56 AM
ho, ho, ho. all i can say is, nothing truly crap can ever survive, cos if people don't want something, it'll die away. and if they don't care enough, they deserve it. maybe at some point in the future this sad little species will learn its own pitfalls and fix them - honestly, of what benefit to this society can consolidated monolithic companies be?

a bit deep, but hey, i'm just tired of seeing big bastards do anything to get bigger http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif anyone remember ZX Spectrum's intro tape, "The Horizons?" i'm thinking foxes and rabbits http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

[do note the capitals http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif]

*Aaron*
10-23-2002, 11:40 AM
Responding to the first post, I would have to say that a "gaming OS" is a silly idea.
Originally posted by uzu_manga
Outperforming both Windows and Linux in framerate... Then implementing a "directx" look alike media library and opengl.
Exactly how would this new OS outperform Windows or Linux? The multitasking overhead may have been significant on a 486, but it is not on today's processors. The OS doesn't determine the speed of a game; it is the hardware. So what you would have is an OS that has no advantages over any current OS and is good for nothing but playing games. Great idea.

zeckensack
10-23-2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by john_at_kbs_is:
Zeckensack,

Ok, I read the faqs and models at: http://www.trustedcomputing.org/ …

I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t… Anyway the docs were only about security, online transactions,… how are they going to stop software from running, I must be missing something…
trustedcomputing.org of course concentrates on a friendlier view. The real issues start with the TCPA implementations, spearheaded by Microsoft ("Palladium") and Intel ("Fritz chip").

Maybe this will prove useful: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Fritz is a hardware dongle on the motherboard, which will do what I described: check certificates for boot rom and all software and deny execution. In the next phase this will move into the CPU itself.

Be afraid.

zen
10-23-2002, 01:47 PM
Zeckensack and all,
please correct me if I'm wrong,I'm not sure how accurate that FAQ really is, but I've done some reading on slashdot and I tend to agree with Nakoruru's second point that there seems to be some misinformation reagrding TCPA,rather TCPA/Palladium.The actual purpose of TCPA seems to be protecting 'content companies' and their money.That is achieved(?) by implementing a safe(?) mechanism for anyone to distribute encrypted/protected media to 'safe' clients.Regardless of the actual mechanism to achieve this and according to M$ you can still generate content yourself and distribute it freely and anyone can use it but if, for example, you code an audio player you can't expect it to play Palladium-protected media unless you get it certified.And then of course whenever you do a bugfix and recompile it you'll have to recertify it.Neat huh?But I doesn't seem to keep you from writing software,not even an OS although this OS won't be certified and 'nice,big,lawful content companies' won't like it,err trust it.If this is all correct then nothing stops me from recording a song and distributing it freely but if I (legaly)own a protected song then I can't rip it to play it on my (non-palladium)stereo.Of course this all can be cracked on the HW level(not too hard from what I've read) and this'll propably end in another copy-protection fiasco.
Yet that doesn't seem to make it less dangerous.Something like the TCPA you've been describing here couldn't be enforced,err.. I mean,offered to the people right away you'll have to do that in steps so that they can get used to it over time.
Besides did anybody ask us if we want to have such unneeded(and worse unwanted) complexity in the CPU and chipset and pay for it?Bah, the x86 architecture sucks badly anyway and since sparcs and alphas costs,these VIA CPUs are starting to look much better...

BTW FAQ #18:


18. Does code, applets or drivers used on a TCPA-enabled system need to be
signed to run?
No. The use of signed components depends upon the operating system environment in
which the Subsystem operates.

Last time I checked 'no' was quite different from 'depends'...

V-man
10-23-2002, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by *Aaron*:

The multitasking overhead may have been significant on a 486, but it is not on today's processors. The OS doesn't determine the speed of a game; it is the hardware. So what you would have is an OS that has no advantages over any current OS and is good for nothing but playing games. Great idea.

There is always some overhead in multitasking, specially on a single cpu. In an ideal situation, each process, each thread would run on it's own CPU, each cpu with there own cache and perhaps even memory.

Seriallization good, parallel better.

A tuned up OS might run better, but the effort would be a waste.

PS: I think all you guys are nuts. Except for Nutty http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/smile.gif

V-man

*Aaron*
10-23-2002, 04:44 PM
What's all this about multiple CPUs? I thought we were talking about an OS not a hardware platform. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

There is always some overhead in multitasking, specially on a single cpu. In an ideal situation, each process, each thread would run on it's own CPU, each cpu with there own cache and perhaps even memory.The overhead increases with the number of CPUs. If several CPUs share the same memory but have their own caches, you have cache syncronization overhead. If they have their own memory, you cannot directly access data from another thread running on another CPU.

My point was that if you could run Windows95 (a preemptive multitasking OS) on a 486 without problems, then the overhead will be extremely small on a 1.5 GHz processor. If the overhead were, say, 10% of the total CPU time on a 486, then the overhead on a processor that is 10 times as fast would be about 1%. Do you think you would be able to perceive the 1% increase in frame rate if this overhead were eliminated entirely? Windows and Linux may not be the most efficient OSes possible, but the speed enhancements of a "gaming OS" wouldn't be noticable. Sure it would be nice if installing a new OS would make Quake 3 run at twice the framerate, but that isn't going to happen.

And one thing I don't think has been mentioned here before is that in order to play games made for the proposed OS, you would first have to install it. How many game players (not game developers) would install a new OS on their computer just to play a game? I get annoyed when a game says I have to update my drivers http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif. Games released for this OS would have a very narrow market.

uzu_manga
10-23-2002, 09:58 PM
What do people do most of the time by there home computers? Play games and surf the web... implement a stupid webbrowser and you have it all!
But if all of you are going to lower you to M$ standards, so go ahead. The power of a "game os" should be something like this:
You boot the OS. A nice nifty little GUI pops up allowing you to install and play games. It's not allowing you to set up an ftp or anything similar. It's designed to run games... and another thing talking about speed... The drivers for the hardware of this os should be OpenSource as well. You all must know that nvidia gained a lot of performance only by updating the drivers... A bet that there are allways "hackers" out there that could squeeze something more out of that. Drivers to this OS should be game specific, don't take me wrong now! The game specific driver is far from needed to run the game at already high framerate but it allows those "hackers" to push the driver even more for that specific game and hardware. Didn't nvidia do that to Q3, rendering themselves more points from the hardware test software? Another thing is that very often needed calculations like the crossproduct and other geometrical calculations should be in some way speeded up. I don't know if that's possible in software. but if it were it would be real cool. I could understand that all of you thinks that the whole ideá about developing a genuine game os is to much work. But here comes the trouth... Does anyone belive that it will be possible to run todays finest games on tomorrows OS? Not even the already classic game "Silver" is runnable in XP.
If all of you don't care about the future, don't blame me for trying to stop you.

"- But she is still moving."

GeLeTo
10-23-2002, 10:26 PM
It's true that TCPA won't prevent you from running your favourite application or OS. The real problem is that that it can prevent you from accessing content using that application or OS even if you are ready to pay for it. It's not just the licensing, TCPA is tied with lots of Microsoft patents so implementing it in an OS will not be free or will require you to sign an NDA. Had TCPA been an open technology that everyone is free to implement I would be much more enthusiastic about it.
But of course people will find a way around it. Probably the Bochs x86 PC emulator project will get quite a boost from this TCPA thing.

zen
10-23-2002, 11:51 PM
Enthusiastic???About what?A technology whose only purpose besides protecting big people's money and making the allready sucking x86 arch suck even more is to disgrace the word 'trust'?
Anyway uzu,driver development requires a lot of lowlevel knowledge of the actual chip,etc. so I doubt a genral purpose 'hacker' could do better than the proffesionals at nvidia,mainly because it's not just a matter of coding skills.
And if your problem is M$ standards maybe it would be better to simply support linux which anyway can be made to do what you want instead of introducing a new(new arch,new binary formats,new filesystems) OS for wich everyone has to code new drivers,etc. which propably won't happen.

ToolChest
10-24-2002, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by zeckensack:

Maybe this will prove useful: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html


LOL, that’s the same url I posted in the beginning of the thread... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Besides, that guy sounds like a total paranoid... http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

uzu_manga
10-24-2002, 04:50 AM
After all this ...
What if I told all of you that this OS that I propose for, already do excist? And that it's not Windows or Linux dependent. That it can read both NTFS,FAT and ext2,ext3. And that there are implementation making it possible for windows and linux to read the allocation table for this OS? More or less making it possible to develope 3 "exe" files. One for Windows one for Linux and one for this os. And the only reason that none of you have ever heard of it is because it's developed by 5 university students in sweden, as a funny thing to do! And by the way what if I told you that a Geforce 3 benchmarked 127% better on this OS than on Windows, and 154% better than on Linux.

Nakoruru
10-24-2002, 04:54 AM
I did not mean the comments to the effect that someone 'does not know how multitasking works' personally. There is a general misunderstanding among some that the overhead of preemptive multitasking is significant. These are ussually the same people who think that high-priority tasks are faster than low-priority ones when the answer is much more complicated.

Any, as for Palladium (how did that get brought up anyway ^_^), there is nothing keeping you from writing an application which uses Palladium to help encrypt the data which -you- are creating. This means you can use Palladium to protect your data from the government (OF COURSE, THIS DEPENDS ON THERE NOT BEING A BACKDOOR). Sorry for the all caps. Its just that if it does have a backdoor then I am totally against it. As long as everyone can create Paladium apps, and anyone can setup a certificate signing service, then Palladium is just another tool that I may or maynot use. I'll decide on a per case basis if I want to use a Palladium enabled application (it is a deal after all, what do I get for my money, if the deal is bad then I won't take it).

To understand what I mean by certificate signing services, you have to understand taht all they really do is act as a root of trust. They say 'We know this guy is not a hacker who wants to break your computer' so they sign the certificate and you decide that you trust whoever they trust. ANYONE can do this as long as they are trustworthy. The movie industry could create one, but so could I if people would trust me ^_^.

*Aaron*
10-24-2002, 04:58 AM
What do people do most of the time by there home computers? Play games and surf the web... implement a stupid webbrowser and you have it all!I for one use my computer mostly for working on my thesis. I also like to play games. Should I install a new OS that doesn't let me do all of the hundreds of things that I use my computer for just so I can get 61 fps instead of 60 fps? And it takes more than a stupid web browser to surf the web. You need stupid modem drivers, stupid TCP/IP support, etc. So now you have to get modem manufacturers to develop drivers for this new OS too.


The drivers for the hardware of this os should be OpenSource as well. Why would nVidia want to make their drivers OpenSource(TM)? So ATI could copy them? http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif This is not going to happen.


Another thing is that very often needed calculations like the crossproduct and other geometrical calculations should be in some way speeded up. I don't know if that's possible in software. but if it were it would be real cool. What does this have to do with an OS? It sounds like you're talking about a software library. Perhaps you should focus your efforts on developing an open-source platform-independent SDK for games.

The bottom line is many current OSes are suitable for playing games.

LaBasX2
10-24-2002, 07:56 AM
I still think that a gaming OS is a nice idea.
Actually there are already many of them but for consoles only. There are many gamers who prefer consoles over the PC for playing. One reason for this is certainly the ease of use of consoles. You plug in your disc, press the on button and your in the game...that easy. Of course it is something else for a PC since the hardware can be very different but user friendlyness should be a key goal next to performance for this OS.
Actually you don't necessarily have to install your OS if you don't want to. You could just boot it from CD like it is possible with special linux distributions.
About the performance. I don't know much about how processes and tasks are handled but somehow I can't imagine that a very specialized system won't be faster than a generic one. Another example is RAM. Windows XP for example is eating tons of it and these hundred ore more MB could be used to create cooler effects for your game (e.g. dynamic normalmaps).
One last thing would be that such an OS had a standarized and hopefully powerful API that would make it much easier for developers to create common things (e.g. a built in math library optimized for the current system).

tfpsly
10-24-2002, 08:09 AM
About the pure gaming O/S: I don't see the point. I am using my computer for more than just gaming. Ok I'm not the lambda user, but if you can't use your pc for gaming+net+small office (letters and so on...) without rebooting, what's the point?

About Ms's sh|t: yep, that's really dangerous. Knowing Ms, I would not be surprized if they were trying to kill all the FSF/OS/freeware communities. After all they kept on trying to slow down GL, on having (somehow illegual) attempts at killing competitors, etc...

Hey, people from usa in this forum: what are you waiting for kicking out a bit the politics that takes all these stupid/lame/dangerous/... decisions?

gaby
10-24-2002, 08:35 AM
This is my opinion :

Forget now the idea to build a gaming OS : the most importante thing today is not to create island on wich you will sold few poor games, but build library that run on many platforms, ease the working of programmers that have to ports her games on all platforms to get max money back. Today, this is a non sense to want to build a new OS for gaming only, because you have three big OS that take 99,9 % of the PC gaming market, and the other parts are Consoles.

The actual success story in gaming third party product are middleware like the best 3d engines, sound engines and physics engine, but low level API will stile be DX and OpengGL for graphics. One of the best gaming platform wich offer a cross plateform development on both console, Mac and PC is Renderware.

For me, the future way is the higly integrated game development system, but this is my research way...

Regards,

Gaby

nukem
10-24-2002, 02:51 PM
Its called linux. http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

Dump windowz its crap. My FPS on linux is about 500 fps while on windows its about 200fps. Games run better its all free. Its perfect for games.

uzu_manga
10-24-2002, 09:35 PM
LaBasX2 your obvious are the only one on this board that are not totaly against a pure game os. I don't know why everyone else seams to hate it... specialy when none of you are most likely not good enough programmers to develope one. So why complain ... saying that it's to much work... who the fu*k told you that you had anything to do with this? Most likely you all are lame...
So LaBasX2 remember my words... you will see a pure game os on the free market... thrust me!

davepermen
10-24-2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by uzu_manga:
LaBasX2 your obvious are the only one on this board that are not totaly against a pure game os. I don't know why everyone else seams to hate it... specialy when none of you are most likely not good enough programmers to develope one. So why complain ... saying that it's to much work... who the fu*k told you that you had anything to do with this? Most likely you all are lame...
So LaBasX2 remember my words... you will see a pure game os on the free market... thrust me!

todays pc systems are damn complex, and todays os take full advantage of it, eighter windows and linux. you don't loose by running apps in the background at all.. i'm coding a full cpu eating realtime raytracer.. and i have say at one scene 12 fps (i know.. i developed on the p3 500 till now, just starting to live with my 2.66 giga now http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/biggrin.gif), then i started winamp, listened to some ogg (uses a bit more power to encode than mp3, but is much bether..), and surfed the web, had outlook to check mails, etc.. and i got.. 10fps.. i lost 2. for a full cpu using raytracer.. in a game, you loose about 1 frame.

whats the use of that os if you can just start your games in windows, and it works. (or in linux)..

just thinking of the memory management, all that stuff. playing ut2003, i can feel every time harddrive access happens.. if you code your os yourself, you have to develop stuff like virtual files in ram, streaming reading, filemapping, all that stuff windows/linux supports for fast access of large data (wich is important for games.. you want loading bars? you want them _IN_A_LEVEL_? no..).

you think coding that os wich outperforms linux and windows by much is easy? you worked too long with operating systems wich do the hard job for you just to be fast.. if your game is slow, its the hardware..

about the opensource drivers.. not even the linux drivers of nvidia are opensource..

the idea is neat, but its useless.

and i don't want to reboot. why should i have a stable system then? or do i need 2 pc's then? while developing the game.. one for running the current compilation, one for developing.. then i bether get an xbox..

zen
10-25-2002, 01:09 AM
Well the only clear advantage I can think of for a pure gaming OS is that you'll just put a CD in your drive and run the game.So for pure gamers this might be cool,but... who the heck spends all that cash for a PC and expects to use it as a console?And besides I'd like to hear the reason why uzu (who's sure we all are useless) wants to code a new OS.Do you have anything against the unix specs?Don't you like monolithic kernels?Maybe this superOS needs a microkernel.My point is you can get the linux kernel and make it do _whatever_ you need.Heck you can even flash it on the bios chip and have the computer boot in a few secs.Why a totally new OS?Don't you like the support allready there?Do you want to have to convince the whole industry to make new drivers,new compilers,new everything?

Nakoruru
10-25-2002, 04:24 AM
I am a fairly good programmer, and because of that I know that it would take me years to develop a game OS. It took years for Linux to become 1/10 of what it is today (I remember using pre 1.0 systems).

Have you ever considered that the reason everyone hates the idea of a game specific OS is because we know what we are talking about? I am going to just come out and say that the idea is both bad and wrong.

Even a gain of 10 to 25 percent in performance is not worth losing everything that one can do with a windows or linux or mac platform. 10 to 25 percent is not worth losing 99.9999 percent of your audience. 10 to 25 percent is not even worth rebooting.

The way I upgrade, I ussually gain 100 percent performance all around because I do it every 2 years all at once. 2 years is a lot less time than it will take to develop a new OS.

If you are such hot stuff, then please, create at least a boot floppy or CD-ROM for the beginnings of your new OS. At least then we could know you are serious. Otherwise you have absolutely no base on which to insult us.

Building a good game OS is probably just as easy as tweaking the Linux kernel build to only contain stuff which is good for gaming, and then putting together a Linux distribution which only contains stuff good for games. Do a bunch of testing to see if any part of Linux is not optimized for games and create a few patches for the Kernel.

If you are so hot on this then do it! It would be easy to create a bootable CD-ROM that people could put in their drives and run just like a PS2.

But, until you have gotten at least that far, I would not bother people with visions of grand projects. If everybody hates it, then either you have to convince them, or realize that the idea is actually bad.

VikingCoder
10-25-2002, 05:18 AM
But if you can dual boot into this game OS, then Windows is for Windowed applications, and the game OS is for playing fullscreen games. Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the relationship between Windows 3.1 and DOS.

Actually, I was thinking about this same exact thing. What I was really desiring was essentially Linux without X, but with really nice OpenGL drivers, and support for fullscreen SDL, I guess. And probably something like Roger Wilco built into the OS.

Carmack said that it's possible to double the performance of a game, if you're running on a known platform. Well, a game OS would certainly get you a lot closer to being a "known platform."

In a former lifetime, I developed for Java applets, so from that experience, let me say this : FORCE UPGRADES. Make the OS detect new major versions of itself, and refuse to run. I don't care about minor versions, but every time there's a new major version, EVERY USER should have to upgrade. (To the extent that the user is still connected to the Internet...) That makes it so much easier to develop for a platform that it's not even funny.

LaBasX2
10-25-2002, 05:30 AM
There are many famous people in history who had a vision and although everybody else thought they were crazy, these people didn't get influenced, followed their vision and found out revolutionary and ingenious things.
Of course it is well possible that your gaming OS won't be a success but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I think, if you have the time, the ambition and especially the knowledge to make a new OS, take it as a project and give it a try. If it will be successful, everything is fine and if not, you have still gained much knowledge and experience in machine-near programming (an area where many coders don't know much about) that you can use for something else (e.g. a new job).
Personally I must admit that it would be to much work for me to start such a project (although I hacked a bit with boot sectors some years ago http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif). But if you have the ambition, why not giving it a try? In my opinion, there is not much to lose.

LaBasX2

davepermen
10-25-2002, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by VikingCoder:
Carmack said that it's possible to double the performance of a game, if you're running on a known platform. Well, a game OS would certainly get you a lot closer to being a "known platform."

he means known hw platform. not software.. the os doesn't mather, the hw does. i don't want to go back to win3.1 at all. never ever will i do if i don't need to. you don't get speed by disabling windows. just, uhm, run your game as full priority thread, you can set that and block the whole windows then.. then you have the full power of the cpu.. you will _not_ gain speed really except if you are a full dedicated webserver behind, streaming out all you're gaming life, hd-tv-resolution, or something like that http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/biggrin.gif

neighter windows nor linux hurts you in _any_ way. but even so, you see that those, since years developed operating systems, (and both very good today in driver issues) can't work on every hardware perfectly. why? even while they have very advanced support, still driver support is not easy (thats not because of windows, thats because of the every part of hw has to work with every possible combination of every other existing hw.. *ouch*)..

with a big chance, you can't even scratch with your own os at the power of your processors. they have complex operatingsystemhw there in (yes they have) and if you don't use that, you'll _LOOSE_SPEED_ you would have else. you get that all for free, by using windows. or linux, of course..

what you want is a console. why can you code faster stuff on a console? because you know exactly how it works, and you can set _everything_ in the hw, as you know its there. on a pc, you have to abstract away stuff if you want to run it on different platforms. _that_ slows down. not windows. not linux. and even so, that doesn't actually hurt performance by much. if your pc is slow, get a bether one, or update your drivers, and it will be fast..

*Aaron*
10-25-2002, 05:58 AM
Carmack said that it's possible to double the performance of a game, if you're running on a known platform. Well, a game OS would certainly get you a lot closer to being a "known platform."Coding for a gaming OS, even if everyone has the latest version, is not the same as coding for a console. Why? The hardware and drivers are different on different PCs. If Carmack was right, then that would explain why games for the N64 looked so much better than PC games at the time. IMO, a gaming OS would only bring you a little bit closer to the simplicity of coding for a console.

Edit: Oops, davepermen beat me to it http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by *Aaron* (edited 10-25-2002).]

dorbie
10-26-2002, 07:12 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people want to write the next gaming platform (OS or library) yet so few actually want to write a game. Maybe it's because games require artistic content and engineers assume they cannot create that.

The idea of a gaming OS platform is horribly flawed. You'd have no drivers unless you could somehow use them from other OSs and your performance would probably closely track theirs or be significantly worse. There would be little benefit for the reasons described in the previous two posts. If you don't know this going in then you don't even understand the basic principals and should probably choose a different project.

Try Linux with real-time extensions if you want something suitable. You pay for it with bloat but there's so much there that should not be underestimated. How about working on a Linux distro with real time extensiosn and only stuff needed for games (what a concept). Build a platform by throwing the increasing bloat away and sticking with a few core libraries required to boot and load a game from CDROM. Make sure you read up on OpenML along the way.

Gaming platforms are now APIs because they need to abstract hardware and operating system differences but it is a double edged sword. If you really wanted to build a gaming platform as described originally you'd have to chose a hardware platform and stick with it and you're basically starting a console project. That has already been attempted of course. You've never heard of it, which speaks to it's level of success.

The bare bones real-time Linux OpenML platform is interesting, check to see if nobody else has started that project though. It could be a genuinely valuable project and would be about as close in spirit to your original vision as it is realistic to get and still succeed. Hmm...... someone must be working on this already.

DaMangz
10-26-2002, 09:09 PM
I thought about this game OS idea a few years ago and realized it was a dead end. Better off writing games that will run on Windows and Linux instead.

I'm not so sure what the hype is about TCPA. There are millions of computers around without it right now. How is TCPA going to make my machines without the hardware cease working? I still have this machine right here, don't think the us gov or Microsoft are going to come and take it away from me and tell me I can't use the software I bought to run on it still. I'll still be able to write my own code on it for myself.

How will TCPA stop sharing of source code? Will TCPA make compilers go away? You can always download source and compile it. How will it not run? Do you have to authorize everything you compile to run? That would be stupid and I don't see the point of selling compilers anymore. All compilers would cease to function and only the lucky few with the authorized compilers could write code before it was certified.

I think this whole TCPA bit is way to nosy and controlling. I won't buy any machine that has it in it. I will not upgrade to the next Windows if it demands I have it in my computer. I will keep using my current machine and keep working on my things, and f*** all if anybody is going to stop me from doing it. I doubt I'll need a new PC for many years now anyways. Maybe never. This one is fast enough. And if this TCPA stuff becomes a reality I'll buy up a ton of parts in case something fails.

zeckensack
10-27-2002, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by DaMangz:
I'm not so sure what the hype is about TCPA. There are millions of computers around without it right now. How is TCPA going to make my machines without the hardware cease working? I still have this machine right here, don't think the us gov or Microsoft are going to come and take it away from me and tell me I can't use the software I bought to run on it still. I'll still be able to write my own code on it for myself.

How will TCPA stop sharing of source code? Will TCPA make compilers go away? You can always download source and compile it. How will it not run? Do you have to authorize everything you compile to run? That would be stupid and I don't see the point of selling compilers anymore. All compilers would cease to function and only the lucky few with the authorized compilers could write code before it was certified.

I think this whole TCPA bit is way to nosy and controlling. I won't buy any machine that has it in it. I will not upgrade to the next Windows if it demands I have it in my computer. I will keep using my current machine and keep working on my things, and f*** all if anybody is going to stop me from doing it. I doubt I'll need a new PC for many years now anyways. Maybe never. This one is fast enough. And if this TCPA stuff becomes a reality I'll buy up a ton of parts in case something fails.

Simple concept:
Your PC is a 'trusted' platform. A hardware gadget checks your ROM, your boot code, and your OS, creates checksums and compares them to a central database. If the checks succeed, the stuff boots.

After all, if one of the processes running on your machine is unknown (in checksum), the platform as a whole cannot be 'trusted'. It is regarded as 'compromised', disallowing 'trusted' processes to run and shutting down already running trusted processes.

Look it up in the docs, it's all there. Be sure to search for SIGCOMP, the signal indicating a compromised machine, which requires trusted processes to wipe their memory and shut down.

I really cannot start to understand how indoctrinated a human being needs to be to see forward to such a thing as the TCPA. Or to trust their government officials - who surely have a good grasp of computing *cough* - to make the right decisions, completely uninfluenced by corporate needs of course.

[This message has been edited by zeckensack (edited 10-27-2002).]

*Aaron*
10-27-2002, 08:22 AM
I'm not so sure what the hype is about TCPA. There are millions of computers around without it right now. How is TCPA going to make my machines without the hardware cease working? I still have this machine right here, don't think the us gov or Microsoft are going to come and take it away from me and tell me I can't use the software I bought to run on it still. I'll still be able to write my own code on it for myself.Sure, they can't retrofit TCPA into your hardware, but they don't have to. If all hardware manufacturers incorporate it into their products, obsolescence will take care of the rest. Unless you never want to upgrade your computer ever again. I really don't know enough about this issue to know if it will happen, but just look at Macrovision. Its function is to scramble MPEG video on a TV-out signal (to prevent you from making copies of a DVD with a VCR). And manufacturers are actually putting this in their TV-out capable video cards. It doesn't serve consumers one bit, only Hollywood. Go figure.