Creating a bootable version of a game should be optional and would benefit hardcore gamers that want to get the most FPS they could. As far a hardware diversity, the installer would be grabbing drivers direct from windows or online updates and dynamic data will still be written on the HD. Hell, skip the bootable CD and just create a bootable game partition on the machine.
No offense to you, but the gist of your post seems to be the norm when it comes to solving systemic PC problems. Everyone (or a good portion) bitch and complain about bloated Windows and pose only one solution, if they even get that far, Linux, and expect someone else (usually MS, et al) to come up with solutions. It's this lazy-ass mentality that stifles real ingenuity in the PC world and why I don't bother with PC games. I still don't see why anyone would sink $1000+ into a gaming rig and then load Windows on it. Would be like spending $100,000+ on an exotic car and tossing in an 80HP engine and a set of on-sale $70 BF Goodrich tires on it.
Gamers go out of their way to develop cooling systems so they can overclock their processors, but they don't want to change the way the game is delivered.
"Taking it a step further" has no bearing on my idea unless you want to talk mission critical apps and kiosk terminals and such.
I've been saying this since at least '95, "Why can't games be bootable?"
With the proliferation of CD/DVD burners, It shouldn't be so difficult to create a Windows or Linux installer that customizes the game for your particular system and create a bootable CD/DVD. By eliminating the Windows executable and all other programs, games should run XX%(pull stat from whatever orifice you wish) better.
Considering that back in the day, you would exit out of Windows 3.1 to play DOS games even though you could run them in Windows. They were alway faster in DOS. Wasn't until Windows 95 and that God awful game Microsoft came up with that was truly Win95 compatible that game makers accepted the performance hit just so they could sell how easy it is to run the game.
This study didn't mention it, but hints at the reason people turn down the radio when they are trying to find an address. I also remember a comedian in the 80's that used that as a joke.
"Actually, they probably did it for next to nothing, anticipating all the free press coverage they would get. "
Don't count on it. First off, they probably didn't even know if they could recover the data. Second, they would have no way of knowing for sure that NASA would release the information about them providing the data recovery services. Third, they very likely wouldn't have known whether or not the data (if recovered) would be used for anything in the future. Fourth, there are very strict rules about government agencies doing business where they don't pay for services, especially with potentially classified data on the drives.
I would bet very strongly that they got well paid for this recovery. 2 words: government contract.
In an organization such as NASA, I'm sure they have data recovery services on tap and don't really go out 'shopping' for them when a situation arises.
Slashdot Mirror
Creating a bootable version of a game should be optional and would benefit hardcore gamers that want to get the most FPS they could. As far a hardware diversity, the installer would be grabbing drivers direct from windows or online updates and dynamic data will still be written on the HD. Hell, skip the bootable CD and just create a bootable game partition on the machine.
No offense to you, but the gist of your post seems to be the norm when it comes to solving systemic PC problems. Everyone (or a good portion) bitch and complain about bloated Windows and pose only one solution, if they even get that far, Linux, and expect someone else (usually MS, et al) to come up with solutions. It's this lazy-ass mentality that stifles real ingenuity in the PC world and why I don't bother with PC games. I still don't see why anyone would sink $1000+ into a gaming rig and then load Windows on it. Would be like spending $100,000+ on an exotic car and tossing in an 80HP engine and a set of on-sale $70 BF Goodrich tires on it.
Gamers go out of their way to develop cooling systems so they can overclock their processors, but they don't want to change the way the game is delivered.
"Taking it a step further" has no bearing on my idea unless you want to talk mission critical apps and kiosk terminals and such.
I've been saying this since at least '95, "Why can't games be bootable?" With the proliferation of CD/DVD burners, It shouldn't be so difficult to create a Windows or Linux installer that customizes the game for your particular system and create a bootable CD/DVD. By eliminating the Windows executable and all other programs, games should run XX%(pull stat from whatever orifice you wish) better. Considering that back in the day, you would exit out of Windows 3.1 to play DOS games even though you could run them in Windows. They were alway faster in DOS. Wasn't until Windows 95 and that God awful game Microsoft came up with that was truly Win95 compatible that game makers accepted the performance hit just so they could sell how easy it is to run the game.
This study didn't mention it, but hints at the reason people turn down the radio when they are trying to find an address. I also remember a comedian in the 80's that used that as a joke.