Thoughts about an OS

Page 1/8
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

06-01-2003, 16:27

I have had some thoughts about the OS that should come with the new MSX. In my opinion, the people that are going to develop the new OS should think very hard. A good OS is the perfect base for further software development, the total opposite of M$ Windows.

How about a OS kernel based upon Linux technology? The interface should not be like the linux command line, simply because it's too complicated for the ordinary user.

(oh, a C compiler should be shipped with the thing as well, when it comes)

Login or register to post comments

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

06-01-2003, 16:44

Incidently, Nishi also suggested using Linux as OS Smile Linux running Intent that is.

Then, it can be programmed on 3 different levels. High-level (intent), medium-level (Linux), low-level (direct hardware access). Regardless of the language being used. It should be very exciting! Smile

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

06-01-2003, 16:56

The programmers should not be able to access the hardware. Accessing hardware simultaniously by different programs results in the usual crash, most of the time. Low level programming like we used to do with ASM is not an option for multi tasking OS.

I remember some dude saying that he could actually instruct the CPU under Windows. What a lame joke. If it could be, then software would be faster, but less reliable.

we should be programming the OS instead the CPU and let the OS instruct the CPU alone.

But hey, it needs an interface as well. Am absolutely not looking forward to find myself staring at the MSX BASIC prompt when booting the new MSX without floppy (?!)

nishi is right, linux is thee sollution.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

06-01-2003, 16:59

I was not talking about low-level programming while running linux.

By snout

Ascended (15184)

snout's picture

06-01-2003, 18:52

For a computer that is based on the principles on MSX, it should indeed be possible to access all hardware directly, using ASM (or C/PASCAL with inline ASM). If this means the program only works outside of the Linux multitasking environment, so be it...

By Maggoo

Paragon (1207)

Maggoo's picture

06-01-2003, 19:17

What's the point of a new MSX if it runs under Linux ??? I mean really, just get a second hand PC/Atari/Amiga/Mac, install Linux on it and there you go... What would be the added value of yet another machine that runs Linux ?

Linux is also the total opposite of a user friendly system. It's perfect as a server but it's FAR from having what it takes to satisfy regular users and it will never be a mass market product, even Linus Torvald admits it.

The point of having a common base of hardware (which is the case of the MSX standard) is to allow to access directly hardware and get the most out of it, en ensure compatibility between

I don't deny the advantages of an architechture with middle layer but to me it mostly applies to PC where nothing is standard. And this is really the opposite of the MSX spirit.

By snout

Ascended (15184)

snout's picture

06-01-2003, 19:23

I was more thinking of an OS based on Linux that can run Linux software as well. Or, like Intent, an OS on an OS. Both is possible

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

06-01-2003, 19:30

Linux is indeed far from user friendly. At least, when using the command line. Using the graphical windows look-a-like shells improve it! Use KDE on linux and the dumb users can also have fun with it.

But hey, im not supporting linux on MSX at all! It more like a NEWer multitasking OS based on the advantages that linux has. Ripping pieces of code is no problem at all because it's opensource.

But multitasking AND hardware programming is just not a good idea. every programmer should know that very well.

Well maggoo, what would u like to see? The MSX BASIC prompt again? Nah, that's ancient and won't succeed IMO.

Tongue

By Grauw

Ascended (9580)

Grauw's picture

06-01-2003, 19:32

Linux or linux-based doesn't nessecarily mean it's not user-friendly. Windows adds a high level of automation to its kernel, Linux could do the same. Only now efforts towards that are really starting, take a look at Lindows and such.

As for the rest, the 'new MSX' is also targeted to the more 'advanced' user, they want to include a programming language like Basic with it after all, don't they?

About an OS for MSX, I have some nice ideas for an OS which I like to refer to as DOS3 ^_^. It's not particularly based on an existing kernel or anything, just a custom design with great flexibility which could turn out very cool ^_^. Anyways the project is at the moment halted for a bit in favour of more interesting development. But I'll continue working on it after that.

~Grauw

By Maggoo

Paragon (1207)

Maggoo's picture

06-01-2003, 19:49

Well it doesn't HAVE to be multitasking all the time. Look at Amiga, there was a very good multitasking system, however, for games/demos, etc... It was possible to take over the entire system and access hardware directly...

3D Multitasking Basic prompt would be cool indeed Smile

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

06-01-2003, 21:08

well, combining multi tasking with hardware programming could be nice indeed! I think it would make emulating MSX a lot easier.

Switching modes is possible! But no, i would not prefer to program BASIC, again LOL!

Page 1/8
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6