You really do go out of your way to be clueless. Direct X is an application programming interface. Or rather, it's a collection of them. It is not however a gaming mode for Windows or anything like it. Direct X does not suspend tasks that aren't essential when running a game, nor does it stop firewalls getting in the way (which usually have their own game modes).

It would have been invaluable back in the days of single core processors and less than a GB of RAM, but it would still help now. Especially in resolving conflicts.

If you ask M$ they'll probably try to sell you that 7 ultimate is a form of "gamer" oriented OS.... ;-)

More seriously, why indeed couldn't ythere be a W8 "Gamer edition" just like there will be a "pro" or a "business" edition ? That would seem reasonable indeed. .... until you browse the net and find that infamous "MS vision of the future of PC gaming" movie .

And that's why they call Windows an "operating system". Don't like it? Buy a console....

Consoles do have operating systems, gaming ones, however what we are talking about is the ability to have one of these on a PC that is personally built.

False. Consoles have firmware. It's a completely different matter....

That used to be the case, but let's be honest at this point it's an OS. Back in olden times all the firmware was able to do was locate the code on a cart and load that up. But these days, whether it be PS3, XBox or Wii, it has all the elements necessary to be considered an OS.

There's a difference? Software that handles the communication between hardware and other software, as well as possibly presenting some sort of user interface to interact with. Hell, my router runs Linux - definitely an operating system, albeit stripped down to little more than the absolute necessary bits of software - and it is much less advanced than the software running on my XBox 360.

It's gotten to the point of being an OS, you can deny that if you like, but it's true.

Yes, there are very important differences. A firmware have no multitasking to deal with, no API facilities for high-level languages compiled software, no device drivers, no 32-bit compatibility requirement, no complex GUI and shell for file system browsing, no complex kernel-process interaction (multiplied by X, where X is 1 to infinite), no compatibility with the weirdest breed of hardware out there, no DLLs, no abstraction layers (almost).

Dunno, I have to go on or that's enough?!? :-P

P.S.Linux IS NOT an operating system. Linux is a kernel. Ubuntu is an operating system, Linux is not. Please be polite while talking about this kind of stuff XD

There are invariably more background tasks than those which define Windows as an OS and certainly more than is necessary to run a game. Yes, it would make things more console-like in terms of efficiency at least. Why would anyone have a problem with improved efficiency?

Meh, kernel+software=OS. Right, the NAT runs DD-WRT, a Linux-based operating system complete with shell, filesystem, web server, TCP/IP stack and a hell of a lot other stuff brought from somewhere or other.

Then your router is way more intelligent than a PS3, for that matter....
Not efficiency, dumbness. An operating system servers its user, his needs and his preferences, a console is served by its user. Damn, how the heck I install my preferred ripping software (or freeware game, or retrogame, or emulator, or the fuck that I want at the moment) on a console?

Console-like mode on my OS? No thanks, I want consoles and PCs very much antipodal.

Theoretically it would only be dumb while the game is running. Otherwise, yes that wouldn't be desirable in the least.

Not possible, otherwise Microsoft would have implemented it since Windows XP....

You reckon? Is this the same Microsoft that didn't create the Games for Windows certification for over a decade after DirectX was introduced? The same Microsoft that has utterly abandoned the PC as a gaming platform? They would have given a toss about PC gamers, even when doing so could be a conflict of interests?