Thoughts about an OS

Page 3/8
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

By snout

Ascended (15184)

snout's picture

07-01-2003, 14:18

KoetjeMSX - you made your point on this in the MSX Resource Center (where it should be), lets continue the OS discussion.

IMHO it is indeed not possible to build a legacy MSX which is only a bit (kuch) faster and actually think it will be a commercial success. If you want such an MSX, a CIEL3++ is the way to go. Actually, I'm thinking of getting both a CIEL3++ and a 'one-chip-computer' in the future Wink

Multitasking is what people want nowadays, it's what they are used to. It should not be hard to port software to the new MSX (Linux solves that problem) and it should not be hard for newbies to adapt to the MSX. The real diehards should get the possibility to rid themselves of the multitasking environment whenever needed Smile

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

07-01-2003, 14:33

Even the DOS3 Grauw already mentioned will be multitasking!

Multitasking really isn't anything special. A simple MSX can already do it!

By snout

Ascended (15184)

snout's picture

07-01-2003, 14:41

Ok then I'll throw in the part MSX users aren't really used to: A user friendly GUI Wink

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

07-01-2003, 15:07

Yup! Can i conclude that an OS that supports both multi tasking env and hardware programming? ???

A seamless combination of the ancient MSX technology and todays multitasking environements?? ofcourse, it MUST (and it probably will) have a super GUI and the abillity to use the basic prompt.

All in 1, the best of both worlds?

By sjoerd

Hero (599)

sjoerd's picture

07-01-2003, 15:11

We should ask Microsoft for a MSX version of Windows XP. Not only for the stunning user interface, but also because of it's multitasking features and stability. I really think the new MSX deserves the best OS availible. And Windows XP has proven to be the best.

OK, having said that:

The OS should consist of a microkernel which takes care of the processwitching, the memory management and interprocess communication. All other tasks will be done by other taskprocesses. The shedular will be just another userproces, so if you don't like it, just reprogram it. Same goes for the windows system (the user interface), if you're a control freak and want 'total control' just make your own. As long as only one of all processes has access to certain hardware, there is no problem.

The system can be Linux compatible by making the C headerfiles just like the unixversions.

And the new OS should start with a blue screen with white characters. BASIC forever!

Did I mention I love Windows XP? LOL!

By ro

Scribe (4355)

ro's picture

07-01-2003, 15:18

..and what would, in your opinion, be a user friendly interface?

I can't say MSX had BAD interfaces.... atleast most stuff worked for me.

(again, I'm never satisfied... thaz the reason for me to code the thing I need myself)

Look, if a new MSX means NEW OS and all.. it would simply be another computer instead of being an MSX as we know and love so well.

Proving my point: MSX is dead.. or atleast without future (since every one agrees for a NEW machine, which isn't like the OLD MSX)

I'd like to see a new machine too.. but it wouldn't have to be an MSX, 'coz that concept died years ago.

Linear RAM eh?

well, that wouldn't be the same as the 'old' memory mapping thingy, now would it? So, consequently, old MSX stuff wouldn't work... (okay, a workarround solutions is always at hand ofcourse.. but still) and what about direct RAM addressing? wouldn't be the same..

Multitasking??

Uh, why? I got my pc for that....

Quicker CPU?

well I can't disagree with that. But it's also fun proving skills on 3.5 MHz, right? okay, more speed is nice Smile

Then what?

Would it be 'just' another hobby machine? waste of money I'd say.

Hell, the more I try to proof my point, the more eager I become to dig up the good'ol MSX I buried years ago....

(saw that gap again today, and it was begging me to stay. managed to push myself away. I knew you so well, my friend)

By Latok

msx guru (3815)

Latok's picture

07-01-2003, 15:36

Look, if a new MSX means NEW OS and all.. it would simply be another computer instead of being an MSX as we know and love so well.

My thought EXACTLY. Well...If I read stories about an MSX version of Windows XP, I think: That is absolutely not the OS the new MSX has to have. Windows XP is userfriendly, stable and stuff, but erhm...I, as a total digi nitwit Smile, don't understand anything from what's behind this mysterious OS. It works great, but I don't know nothing about how to program with it. The joy of MSX was imho that also nitwits like me can program the MSX and create stuff. The new MSX, in my vision, MUST have the same transparent OS as the old MSX has. And also same transparent programming languages. Isn't the MSX OS the same as the programming language? Is BASIC an OS? I like that. Please don't let the new MSX OS be a version of Windows XP. Then the MSX would just be another PC or something.

Proving my point: MSX is dead.. or atleast without future (since every one agrees for a NEW machine, which isn't like the OLD MSX)

Do you think so? Do you think it is impossible to create a machine with equal transparency and easy to program as the MSX? I don't think so. I think it is possible.

I'd like to see a new machine too.. but it wouldn't have to be an MSX, 'coz that concept died years ago.

I think the CONCEPT of MSX is the way to the future! The world NEEDS a concept as the MSX to get MORE people creative using computers. Right now, 'normal' (*) people only use PC's as functional machines. They can't be bothered trying to understand the PC itself and start creating stuff themselves. This should change.

Linear RAM eh?

well, that wouldn't be the same as the 'old' memory mapping thingy, now would it? So, consequently, old MSX stuff wouldn't work... (okay, a workarround solutions is always at hand ofcourse.. but still) and what about direct RAM addressing? wouldn't be the same..

I agree on this one. Memory mapping is irritating. So this new MSX should have linear RAM indeed. So what? I'm sure old MSX stuff could still work with some kind of, what you call it yourself, work arround solution.

Multitasking??

Uh, why? I got my pc for that....

People want multitasking, why shouldn't this new MSX have multitasking abilities? Even the old MSX systems can handle multitasking, as GuyveR800 already mentioned.

Quicker CPU?

well I can't disagree with that. But it's also fun proving skills on 3.5 MHz, right? okay, more speed is nice Smile

More CPU speed is always nice.

Then what?

Would it be 'just' another hobby machine? waste of money I'd say.

Yes, for me, it would be a hobby machine, yes. I admit. Is that a waste of money? I don't think so. If it lets go creativity? What's more beautiful than that? Apart from a tall brunette on high heels ofcourse Tongue Tongue Tongue

Hell, the more I try to proof my point, the more eager I become to dig up the good'ol MSX I buried years ago....

(saw that gap again today, and it was begging me to stay. managed to push myself away. I knew you so well, my friend)

That's what's being called 'THE MSX FEELING'. Ro, you're telling me you forgot about these feelings you used to had?? Sad..... oO

Let's not forget most of the forumposters here are on a much higher level if it concerns computers than 'normal' (*) people. For the new MSX I want an understandable OS, understandable programming languages, a set hardware configuration which can be understood easily. A lot of public info on the hardware and some cool utilities like Graphicprograms, musictrackers and a great ASM/DISASM to start with.

So, basically, indeed, a computer, based on the old MSX philosophy but with modern capabilities. CPU, Video and sound. And structure. And it should have a display which can be read on a TV too. So not too high resolution.

An utopia? Dunno. I'll just wait and see Smile

*=this of course, is a COMPLIMENT for you out there reading all this Tongue Tongue

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

07-01-2003, 15:50

Windows XP for the new MSX?! Don't make me laugh!

And ro, you should try reading some more into the MSX Revival, because you preaching 'MSX is dead' sounds pretty stupid.

By Sander

Ambassador (1863)

Sander's picture

07-01-2003, 15:51

A new MSX probably will be a small, low cost "internet enabled" device. With build in TCP/IP, USB post, low cost opll chip, maybe even solarpowered and an interface to some sort of sattlelite dish for the internet connection. Powered by an Arm low voltage CPU.

Probably build in China, for less than $100.

MSX compatibility perhaps for the easy of use or for the existing software base. Maybe some build in ROM with internet software (mail etc.)

At least, accoording to Nishi.

With easy of use, you can also think of some MSX Basic like interpreter, hopefully like Qbasic Pro or something, so you don't have to use line-numbers. Should be fully capable to use all hardware of the device.

Remember, Basic is fun and easy to learn. Perhaps even for those nice folks down in Afrika.

Although I'm still not sure if people -for instance- in Ethiopia need stuff like this.

I see a salesman walking in the Narobian desert with a new MSX. Look people: a low cost internet device! (Those people earn a buck a week if the're lucky).

Internet? What's that? Can we eat that?

Salesman: A worldwide communication network! Now you can communicate with family in distant places!

You mean talking to the dead?

No no, with your brothers and sisters!

People: our whole family lives here! We only have camels. We don't own helicopters.

Please give it a try!

A well. the device is hooked up. After a few months some people know how to read and write, at least in their own language, but thanks to uml they can communicate with the nearest city.

Hello there! Hi, how are you. Fine thanks. Do you guys have some food?

By ro

Scribe (4355)

ro's picture

07-01-2003, 15:56

trust me, latok, I WILL NEVER FORGET NEITHER REJECT THE MSX FEELING !

simply can't be done, the memory is to strong to just ignore.

It's just that I have spend so fucking much time on MSX, I forgot about real live out there. That's what I am realizing now. Not that I wouldn't mind locking myself up for a few weeks again, just to code the hell out of msx, but I must be strong and open to be aware of the consequences. If I let my self into this state again, I would eventually destroy myself. I would trade it all for just a little peace of mind u know.

I must make arms out of my imperfection to fight this hunger.... really.

While it has done many good, I have trouble going down the spiral again. Letting go would sound like a logic solution. like I said; saw that gap again today. I spend many years in question; what if I would be digging up the machine.

MSX has been great. And YES maybe it IS a good concept, atleast 20 years ago. But nowadays it is far outdated, just like that old opel kadet I used to drive...

I do own a opel astra now, just for DRIVING. I am not interrested in fixing, repearing, updating or renewing that damn old car. Not my thing. I am a *normal* user, as you pointed out so correctly.

I can imagine the drones at the autoshop would LOVE to look under the hood... But I never hear them talk about renewing an old car... yeah, maybe only for collectors..

And there you have it; COLLECTING THE ORIGINALS.

They are not interrested in my brand new opel astra, nor would they see an upgrated old ford 10 or what ever.

I too love the MSX classic. Okay, I keep it in a box on the attic, so what? I still got that good feeling.

whoops, typed too many frustration allready.. I'll leave ya lot at peace and keep my big mouth shut for this day..

so greets, oan't moan.

ro

Page 3/8
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8