Real Graphical OS for MSX

Page 1/3
| 2 | 3

By scratch_disk

Expert (72)

scratch_disk's picture

26-07-2004, 10:27

I was surfing through SOLID's site and there I found his project MultiZ98 www.getbanner.ru/novatec/multiz.htm, a graphical OS for MSX which he claims it's his answer to Bill Gates :). Any body ever tried out this OS? Any body knows its state of development so far?
I really would love to see applications that work under this OS.
By the way I think the download links in his site do not work

Regards

Login or register to post comments

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9971)

wolf_'s picture

26-07-2004, 10:36

Grapical OS'es have never been very populair on MSX .. I didn't like Windows3.11, and 95 didn't really run smoothly and elegant on my 486 back then .. and now I'm talking computers that are way faster than an MSX Smile

By BiFi

Enlighted (4348)

BiFi's picture

26-07-2004, 13:20

Windows 3.11 and 95 aren't even operating systems, but GUI. When Win95 is booted up you still see that flashing cursor stating the real core OS is still DOS. Same goes for 98 and ME btw. There are GUI for MSX:

  • Philips Ease, which has a series of office based applications. The windows can be moved freely
  • Sony Hybrid, also a GUI with office based applications
  • Easy, by Juan Salas. Works with MSX-DOS 2 and can be installed on harddisk
  • HD-Menu, something like Easy. Can't recall the authors though
  • WiOS is a Windows styled GUI/OS which requires Gfx9000. There are very few applications for it. Check http://www.msx.ch/sunformsx/ for more on it, and, if you're a lucky Gfx9000 owner, download WiOS
  • Multi Mente, which is more like a full text-based shell with 16 colors. Looks more like an ANSI application though

Did I forget any?

By Sonic_aka_T

Enlighted (4130)

Sonic_aka_T's picture

26-07-2004, 13:45

Would a group of 'us' be willing to put their hands together on this? I've always felt indeed that DOS2 could use a nice graphical shell. I know there are a few out there, but none of them have managed to set-up a programming environment that invites people to make 3rd party apps.

I'm thinking a nice Windows-like shell that can perhaps accomodate a few applications running 'at the same time'. Not multitasking, but at least something in which you can type a text in 'notepad' and then perhaps launch the calculator just to check if a calculation you made is actually correct. I know Ease does most of this in quite a good attempt, but it's not DOS2 compatible.

Perhaps if a few people work on this, one could do math/kernel routines, another could do Disk I/O, another could do the GUI, etc... Just a thought, although I know it would be hard to find programmers willing/interrested to do this. I would probably make a nice launch-pad for all the harddisk owners out there. I think more than a few people would end up using it...

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9971)

wolf_'s picture

26-07-2004, 13:54

Who would use it ?

If I want to start mbwave, then what's the point in first starting some GUI thing, then click some mbwave icon, rather than just type 'm' in dos2 itself (which runs an m.bat file starting mbwave)....?

And I *never* had the feeling I should be doing multiple tasks at the same time on an MSX ..

I've the feeling that making such an a GUI/OS is more like 'proving' that it's possible on an old 8bitter, rather than that it's really useful. How many ppl actually *seriously* used stuff like Ease, Easy, Hybrid, WiOS etc. ? And if ppl actually used it in the mid-80's, then I ask: who uses it today?

small note: don't let me stop anyone tho, I'm just giving my 2 cts/opinion Smile

By Sonic_aka_T

Enlighted (4130)

Sonic_aka_T's picture

26-07-2004, 14:14

Who would use it ?
Actually, if the GUI matures enough, anyone with a harddisk. They would end up using it, eventually.

If I want to start mbwave, then what's the point in first starting some GUI thing, then click some mbwave icon, rather than just type 'm' in dos2 itself (which runs an m.bat file starting mbwave)....?
Well, that's the same flawed logic that we saw when the first GUI's appeared. Yet you're using Windows, and so am I. Ofcourse _now_ this is because most software is made for Windows, but it wasn't always like that. Windows got as popular as it is, back in the time when it was nothing more than a shell for DOS, because people prefer the point & click interface to having to type commands all the time. It's the natural evolution of the human-computer-interface that will end up with speech recognition for most commands. Though not for MSX I'm afraid Wink And no, I am not suggesting you will use a GUI just to start MBWAVE. You will eventually end up using it for other things though, and my hope would be that eventually people will start making programs for such a GUI.

And I *never* had the feeling I should be doing multiple tasks at the same time on an MSX ..
And I *never* said this. Actually, the first thing I said is that it would *not* be multitastking. This doesn't mean though, that you should limit the amount of applications open to just one. If you have free memory, why close one application in order to start another. On my PC I am constantly using several applications simultaneously with using them _at the same time_. I am perhaps typing a text, then need to calculate a number, swith back to the text and type it. It seems illogical to save my text file, close the application, start the calculator, calculate the number, close the calculator, start the text editor, open the text file, and write the number. Why not eliminate all that saving, loading and closing if we can?

I've the feeling that making such an a GUI/OS is more like 'proving' that it's possible on an old 8bitter, rather than that it's really useful. How many ppl actually *seriously* used stuff like Ease, Easy, Hybrid, WiOS etc. ? And if ppl actually used it in the mid-80's, then I ask: who uses it today?
Well, part of it may be just _having_ it. Another part is that they can actually be darn handy at times. The only thing MSX has never had is an environment in which other people can actually _make_ their applications work under that GUI. Most of the GUIs we've seen are just empty shells that only work as launch pads. I must say I've used Easy quite a bit in its time though...

small note: don't let me stop anyone tho, I'm just giving my 2 cts/opinion Smile
Don't worry, your opinion isn't gonna stop anyone. Lack of interest from other programmers is Tongue Wink

By BiFi

Enlighted (4348)

BiFi's picture

26-07-2004, 14:16

I was part of a team working on a Windows-like shell called Windows XL. One of the core developers got ill for quite some time and the whole project got on hold. I left the team due to things that had a higher priority on my list and nothing was heard for a long time. The ill developer recovered and started on developing other things. So I guess Windows XL is yet another project that has been silently moved beneath the carpet.

The idea wasn't actually multi-tasking, but more like task-switching. It would have been able to open more programs, but have just one actually active to work with.

By ro

Scribe (4710)

ro's picture

26-07-2004, 14:25

I'm with stupi... eh Wolf on this one. I've said it before and will again: It gives absolutally no add to the existing MSX enviroment.

It's stupid, pointless and a waste of good time. "Yeah, but now we got this cool looking graphical user interface. Ok, it's slow.. ok, it takes a whole lotta craptime to load.. ok, it can only run 1 program and not even in the same space (has to boot up seperatally)... ok, returning from programs resulting in mainly booting the whole gui again... but HELL we got this cool gui!!"

That's just plain stupid. Face it ppl: MSX was not cut out to handle any GUI. Be honest, is ANY-ONE using one of the earlier mentioned GUIs ?? (maybe multimente, but that's basically a text based disk editor) have you EVER booted up HYBRIT (sony) MAN!! what a drag, took aaaaages to load and what you end up with? .. well it's clear I myself (imo!) think itsa waste of time even spending a discussion on!
cheers.

(who was that poor sap who came up with that win.2k look alike shell? whooahah.. sorry)

By Sonic_aka_T

Enlighted (4130)

Sonic_aka_T's picture

26-07-2004, 14:27

I was part of a team working on a Windows-like shell called Windows XL. One of the core developers got ill for quite some time and the whole project got on hold. I left the team due to things that had a higher priority on my list and nothing was heard for a long time. The ill developer recovered and started on developing other things. So I guess Windows XL is yet another project that has been silently moved beneath the carpet.
Well, if the GUI itself came along nicely, would you be willing to help out? And if so, what could you contribute?

By Sonic_aka_T

Enlighted (4130)

Sonic_aka_T's picture

26-07-2004, 14:31

@Ro: Sorry ro, but I don't see why a GUI would have to be slow or would have to take ages to load. There's no reason for either. Apart from that, a GUI could load fast from floppy, which it's not meant for, but would load BLAZINGLY FAST from harddisk. Say you were to load 256kB of raw data, that would take less than a second on any odd harddisk setup an MSX user might have. I'll bet you what the heck ever that an MSX _can_ do a GUI.

But hey, I guess it is indeed not worth the hassle if most MSX users feel like this. Let's just see what kind of reactions we get, but if most of 'em are like this, there is indeed no point...

By ro

Scribe (4710)

ro's picture

26-07-2004, 14:37

it's too late to start such an idea dude. really. we're dead and can't get burried any deeper in. so why wast time on crap like a GUI. the past has proven that this just won't work. Even a superduperHD wouldn't take it.
(256 in sec. is the transfer rate .. but uhrm, did ya ever thing about the actual MSX speed.. let alone VRAM block transfer). . .

well, good luck with any attempt.. Bet ya, no one will use is. it's just cool looking. thaz it. cheerio!

Page 1/3
| 2 | 3