Thoughts about an OS

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

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

07-01-2003, 17:18

if the new MSX has in anyway something to do with microsquirt, or based upon XP then i think the computer will crash and hang and slowdown and become xtremely annoying

By sjoerd

Hero (599)

sjoerd's picture

07-01-2003, 17:29

Please, Windows XP does NOT suck. It's just being what most peolpe want.

And even when it crashes, who cares?

1. When it crashes, I was doing nothing, or nothing important. Like Internet or whatever. What was the last time you were doing something useful using Windows?

2. When it crashes the nice blue screen reminds me of msx basic. Same colors.

3. If you think windows suck, just use Linux or whatever. No-one makes you use Windows. And I have seen other OSes going down just the same.

I have never had this much fun with an OS since Windows95. Microsoft always makes me laugh with their stupid look-driven interfaces. I even BOUGHT Windows XP. And it's worth every euro. Smile

It's great that everybody reacts on Windows XP, but why does everybody seem to love Linux? Did you ever use Linux?

C'mon, I want a good GUI. And I know Microsoft isn't interested in good GUIs. And I want a nice OS. Linux is not nice. Windows is not nice.

I thought we would discuss what OS the new msx should have. And now I am involved in another Windows vs. Linux debate. Crying

I hope the new msx will be multiboot. That will do some good for the 'MSX standard'. Tongue

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

07-01-2003, 17:29

I agree with Mark (Hi dude! ^_^) here Smile

By sjoerd

Hero (599)

sjoerd's picture

07-01-2003, 18:04

Because microsoft 20 years ago != microsoft today

Nothing is the same as 20 years ago (OK, Unix is Smile ).

How will that be more complicated? With a common MMU with memory protection there is nothing complicated to it.

OK, I even think the MSX memory mapper is complicated. I like to adress the memory directly, and that isn't easy in a multitasking environment. All programs have to be linked when they are loaded to memory.

The whole idea is it IS programmable in assembler. The ARM assembly language is very very nice to work with. And extremely powerful too!

If the new msx is fast enough (and it will be, ofcourse), I probably won't program any assembler for it. I know what the ARM assembly language looks like, and I do like it a lot. There are a lot of features not to be found on other cpus. And the thumb mode is very Z80 like. Smile (By the way, which ARM will be used?)

MSX running Linux will not feel like MSX indeed, but everything around it will. And personally I don't think I will run that MSX in Linux alot!

Remember, a lot of MSX'ers never use (or used) MSX-DOS much at all!

Uhm well, for me, the new msx won't be a computer to use, but just another toy to play with. I am just looking for something easy to program, but more powerful than the current msxes.

Please try to move away from the PC concept of platform/OS coupling.

The platform/OS coupling is not a PC thing. Look at all the OSes that excist for the x86 PC.

>>I still like Windows XP.<<

Haha. It will be exited to see how much worse it can get, or not?

That's your perogative Smile

Personally I hate it, it makes me feel like I have no control over the computer whatsoever.

I never wanted to have any control whatsoever over a PC. I just do not like PC's. I do not like Intel cpu's. Still Windows is the best OS for a PC for the average user.

No they didn't. Okay, for the time it was, but it was 20 years ago. Microsoft did NOTHING for MSX after the initial work.. And why would anybody intentionally give another market to microsoft so it can abuse its monopoly more and bully all of us with things like Paladdium?!

I think you need to get your lips off of Gates' butt Wink

MSX-DOS2, now that is a good, but not written by Microsoft Smile

MSX DOS was not good. Well nothing Microsoft ever did was good, but still they are where they are today. Hoever, I don't think anyone at ASCII wants anything to do with Microsoft anyway.

MSX-DOS2 was a little late. Smile

STFW, ie. Google

Thanks.

Still, I like the microkernel idea.

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

07-01-2003, 20:02

multi kernel? what was i reading? im sorry, i read a little bit quick. but perhaps, a perfect mix of msx dos and a multitasking linux (look-a-like(we''ve discussed this!)). By the time they wll start producing a new msx, i believe (estimated agaist the current speed of hardware progess) there will be relative cheap processors that enable hyperthreading at hardware level, it also can allow CPU time to be shared, that's (a part of) the idea behind that technolgy.

needs a very efficient base OS to be able to run 2 kernels.

check this info about hyperthreading:

www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/

edit: euhm, what was that about a micro kernel mark??

:P

By sjoerd

Hero (599)

sjoerd's picture

07-01-2003, 20:12

There are several ways to design an OS. One way is to implement everything in the kernel (like Windows). This way the kernel tends to get big. When one wants to update the OS, one has to restart the whole system.

Another way is to use a small kernel (the microkernel Smile ) and use normal user tasks to do the sheduling, the diskaccess, the gui or whatever you want. That way a driver is just another task like any other, and not 'something special.' The kernel only takes care of the process switching, the memory management and the interprocescommunication.

Tongue

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

07-01-2003, 20:16

nah, i prefer brand new innovative technology. it can offer so much more. it can allow to run both OSs at the same time.

By sjoerd

Hero (599)

sjoerd's picture

07-01-2003, 20:29

So let's use an Unix-based os!!!

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

07-01-2003, 20:38

and msx dos whatever version

By Maggoo

Paragon (1208)

Maggoo's picture

07-01-2003, 21:28

So let's use an Unix-based os!!!

I'm trying to figure out why it would be a good point...

8) <-- Trying really hard. What's so great about Unix that makes it a must have in a home computer OS ?

I must not have the same memories of Unix, last time I used a Unix based system it had "Boring" written all over it Wink

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