Here's a stupid question.
I don't care how hard it would theoretically be. Could someone program video games or virtually anything that spoke directly to the X86 and misc. chipsets to circumvent their programs being incompatible with the continously different, divergent and incompatible processors, video hardware and such in misc. personal computers?
Now surely the games and programs would not be pretty, but would/could they be functional?
>>53671128
you must be new
what the fucking fuck?
What you've just said is complete and total nonsense; and does not and could not ever mean or imply any kind of coherent thought.
>>53671128
nigga, 1st of all you need to english
2nd programs already "speak directly to the X86 and misc. chipsets", or do you think that stuff gets executed magically by your machine? granted that interpreted stuff exists (java bytecode, .net msil, php, etc) and is not executed directly by most hardware (some stuff does run java bytecode directly) ecen that sort of stuff is recompiled/transpiled at runtime into native code
3rd, learn java/c#, then learn c++, then c, then some lower level programming language like high level assembly language like high level assembly language then learn and target the assembly/instruction-code of a machine you want to try out like a 6502 or some simple x86. you should now be ready to re-read the shit you wrote in OP and cringe at it
>>53671309
>...then some lower level programming language like high level assembly language like high level assembly language then...
I haven't done it and I'm already cringing at you, fuck!
>>53671309
wow its an answer as shit as the question
>>53671128
>Could someone program video games or virtually anything that spoke directly to the X86
you can program in assembly which will get translated into direct machine code
>and misc. chipsets to circumvent their programs being incompatible
but it won't make your game any more portable or compatible across multiple hardware types (probably the opposite)
>>53671370
>>53671373
god, i hate summer...
>>53671455
>>53671128
Im not even sure what your asking....
>>53671128
no, the os locks userspace programs out of communicating directly with hardware
you'd have to boot the game to do what you're suggesting
>>53671128
Early DOS games sometimes did that, but now we have drivers for this shit
>>53671994
wasn't always this way
dos programs mostly used bios calls
OP is testing the shitpost bot
>>53671128
You're asking if removing the biggest compatibility layer in the entire stack (OS + drivers) will somehow improve compatibility?
Do you think if I got rid of the machine's motherboard, it could/would misc. etc. communicate with the computer's internal hardware within itself? Theoretically, I could/would allow the GPU and all relevant coprocessors to communicate with the hyperdrive, but I don't think the centrifuge would deliver it down the bus fast enough in order dor it to compensate with the lack of said parts due to the /pol/ invasion going on in this board. If I try this it will cause a stack overflow that would cause the central chipset to fluctuate. Agree or yes?
>>53672182
you forgot to take into account the rotational velocidensity...
>>53672182
yes, but don't forget that you'll need an independent procommunication layer in order to carry the compensated bits for the I/O operations between your co-processors.
>this thread
OP, do you happen to have a sister and did she get upset when the doctor was trying to weight her in a pool?
>>53672411
friendly reminder that the majority of /g/ users wont understand you
>>53672675
Explain
>>53671128
>continously different, divergent and incompatible processors
it's not that the question is stupid; you are stupid
you could program a game in assembly that is vesa 2.0 compliant like menuetOS
>>53672182
as long as you got a proper hyperbus, there shouldn't be impossible to perform inter-component communication. all that left is for you to figure out the medium at which information is going to be travelling and guarantee that bit rot won't clog the process pipes or it could get messy real quick.
>>53672675
I know, but you did bae ;)
What compiler lets me put C into direct machine code without making it readable or sharing any libs (glibc)? LLVM/Clang???
Holy shit I lost.
Thanks op, I needed a laugh.
>>53672953
Almost C compiler converts C directly into direct machine code. Particularly, GCC, LLVM and Microsoft and Intel C compilers. Hope this helps.
>>53671128
>spoke directly to
>>53672953
If the machine can read it (and it has to, otherwise it won't work) it is readable
>>53671128
You're probably thinking of writing things in assembly. That's how old video game systems used to work (no OS, just the game). It's a waste of time to do this because you would severely limit what your program/game could run on.
>>53671128
> talk directly to the hardware
> run on incompatible hardware
Which is it OP?
Not even getting into the fact that only the OS can directly manipulate the hardware, to keep random programs from shitting up your PC, and make them play nicely with each other. Do you want MS DOS? Because that's what having direct access is like. You only get to run one program at a time.
>>53671128
The answer is yes but only if the hardware is basically identical across all machines.
This is how things were before drivers, in the DOS days. Even late in the DOS days we started getting some "drivers" (.sys files for CD-ROM or maybe some particular device).
So in today's world I would say that this would work on some particular platforms ... like Raspberry Pi or something like that.
But there still needs to be an OS. Even a PS2 has an operating system of sorts in ROM.
>>53671128
Just get a mac.
>>53671309
>3rd, learn java/c#, then learn c++, then c
Faggot detected.
>>53671455
>damage control
>>53671994
Another faggot
you mean write shit in machine code?
thats already been done
>>53671128
>incompatible
...and drivers
those 2 words are why it would not work
>to circumvent their programs being incompatible with the continously different, divergent and incompatible processors
But you know this is now the situation now and your opting to destroy that situation right?
>but would/could they be functional?
on a single pc probably yes.
>>53672182
>but I don't think the centrifuge
When I reach that part I spit all the food in my mouth directly to my monitor.
Thanks a lot, faggot.
>>53671128
It's possible, but your game would have to contain it's own os, graphics library and entire stack and would only be runnable with one very specific set of hardware protocols.
