flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > i need an operating system

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
No of course, every device would come with a driver CD, but that would use the BIOS interface, so we would get rid of the "Windows/Linux drivers" and have only "BIOS drivers".
Post 26 Sep 2009, 18:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
then maybe they will start looking something like below..

this driver is compatible with asus motherboard with BIOS version1, Award
then another comes in, only uses with intel motherboard with BIOS version 1.5, award bios.

then phoenix starts another set of proprietary bios calls, only install with phoenix bios version 2. not compatible with award.
Post 26 Sep 2009, 18:48
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
no no no, the BIOS would have a standard interface to which the drivers communicate -- actually the reason for the BIOS' existence today is that of being compatible with the respective motherboard.

For example, the device could talk to the mobo through the BIOS, likewise the OS would talk to the mobo through the BIOS. The OS would talk to the device through the driver and through the BIOS (since the driver would be using the BIOS -- so most likely, you will have to call a BIOS function that would call the driver function that could possibly call further BIOS functions -- if it accesses the mobo, for instance).
Post 26 Sep 2009, 19:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
revolution wrote:
Borsuc: That doesn't work because there are millions (literally) of devices out there. No BIOS could ever hope to support all of them, it would be madness (and impossible).
If they had a standard interface, there would be no need to even have a BIOS, since it would be trivial for an OS to just do everything itself.

_________________
Post 27 Sep 2009, 03:56
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
No that wouldn't work because some mobos are different and because new devices pop up that have functionality that may not be in the "standard". With BIOS all you would have to do would be an updated BIOS but actually, that's not even a problem since it's handled by mobo manufacturers...

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 27 Sep 2009, 14:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Yes obviously a standard wouldn't work if it wasn't followed.

_________________
Post 27 Sep 2009, 14:54
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
or "extended". The problem is that at the time a standard is devised, new functionality may be added, so it has to be revised. That's why the BIOS method is better, as you'll only need to update the BIOS.
Post 27 Sep 2009, 14:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
No.. if some kind of weird new functionality is added, the OS is still going to need updated to take advantage of it.
Post 27 Sep 2009, 15:00
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Not if it is abstracted.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 27 Sep 2009, 15:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
so, in you guys opinion, what is the most suitable and worth it OS to be rely, learn and develop applications into it for long term, maybe 70 years till i die... hehe
Post 27 Sep 2009, 17:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
sleepsleep, I don't think most OSes will be around in 70 years, or even 5 years for that matter. Linux 2.2, Mac OS X "Panther" 10.3.x and Win2k3 are already deprecated, obsolete, barely (if at all) supported. So don't get your hopes up. Everything becomes obsolete, sometimes too fast. Besides, hardware is pretty cheap, it never lasts very long. How many 20-year-old computers still work? (Sad but true.)
Post 27 Sep 2009, 18:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
There's no reason for software to become obsolete, if the driver standardization is done properly (as I outlined).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 27 Sep 2009, 19:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Not if it is abstracted.
Please explain the difference between having a standard interface and "abstracted".


What it sounds to me like you're saying, is "making a standard wouldn't work because any new classes of hardware invented after it would be unrecognized until the standard was updated (e.g. if the OS was made before mice existed, even if there was a standard interface, the OS still wouldn't accept mice when they got invented), but if it was abstracted nothing would need to be changed to support it". Which makes no logical sense.

_________________
Post 28 Sep 2009, 10:20
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
What do you mean by "standard interface"?
Let's say that the BIOS handles disk readings, from any media to make it "standard". Doesn't matter that CDs are completely different than, say, hard disks, even if the sector size is different, the BIOS handles it.

With a standard interface you would have to make all of them the same, which probably isn't appropriate (which is why they're different in the first place). With the BIOS, only the BIOS manufacturers would have to implement it in the BIOS -- or not implement it, if they don't want to add it.

For example, the Windows API has a function "ReadFile". Let's suppose that one had standard access to filesystem, however, in that case you couldn't "upgrade" the filesystem standard if you wanted to, because you would break all programs. With "ReadFile", it would get sort-of "translated" or "emulated" for the new one -- possibly lacking new features but at least it wouldn't break it.

example: maybe the new "filesystem" doesn't have files Razz
Post 28 Sep 2009, 16:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
example: maybe the new "filesystem" doesn't have files Razz
A filesystem without files is just a ystem (whatever that is).
Post 28 Sep 2009, 16:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
That's why I put it in quotes. Maybe it should be called "objectsystem" or something Laughing
Post 28 Sep 2009, 16:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
What for? You're just substituting one word for another.

A storage media and, by extension, a whateversystem, is just a virtual "filing cabinet", so it's quite logical to have *files*.
Post 28 Sep 2009, 18:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
One could argue that this post belongs in the Operating system section, but I believe it is more appropriate for HEAP, though I did submit a preliminary result there: With thanks to Madis, for introducing me to Seamonkey
DrHowardDrFine wrote:
crunchbang is just a preconfigured version of Ubuntu. You can get the same results just using Ubuntu and setting it up the same way though crunchbang saves you the effort.
sleepsleep wrote:
but to use ubuntu instead of direct debian as base is a smart move.!!
crunchbang uses the minimal iso ubuntu to build, smart move also, maybe i should try using the mini ubuntu iso. maybe later.
but, this distro is so far, from what i can see, nice.

The difference is that Crunchbang uses "Openbox" as window manager, while Debian, Ubuntu, and all the rest, use KDE, Gnome, XFCE, or some other, less well known XWindows manager. The data below refute, in my view, DrHowardDrFine's notion, that Crunchbang is "just a preconfigured version of Ubuntu." Nonsense--in my experience.

MainBoard characteristics:

MSI: G41TM-E43; cpu Intel dual core E5200, 2.5 GHz, overclocked to 3 GHz, DDR2 RAM = 4GB
PC6400 dual channel 800, overclocked to 960 MHz; Hard Drive: 150 GB SATA 300, partitioned using
Ranish: Win98 (non-functional) 7 GB FAT32, Swap 1.5GB, Linux 100GB Ext 4, WinXP 40GB NTFS

Biostar: M6VLR; cpu Intel P3, 1.4GHz, SDRAM= 512 MB@133MHz; Hard Drive = 80GB SATA 150,
accessed via PCI SiI SATA controller, Win98 8 GB FAT32, Swap 1 GB, Linux 70GB ext4.

DFI: CM33-TC; cpu Intel P3, 1GHz, SDRAM= 512 MB@100MHz; Hard Drive = 40GB IDE,
partitioned with Ranish: Win98 8GB FAT32, Swap 1GB, Linux 30GB ext4.

The following site was clocked according to "done" appearing in lower left corner of Seamonkey:
Home= http://www.listenlive.eu/classical.html

Music= click on OGG at 256 kbps, --Time measurement for this site noted upon hearing music:
Audio Media Players: Crunchbang = VLC media player; Puppy = Aqualung; XFCE = gxine?

Mother............Time....Time..Time...Time...Time....Time.....boot + home
Board....O.S....Install.Config.Boot....P.Off...Home...Music....+ music
......................min.....min....sec.....sec......sec.......sec.......sec

MSI....Win XP...90......120....30.......12......3...........8..........41
..........Puppy...13........1......28........8.......5...........20........53
....Crbang Lite..3.........10.....40.......11......3............4.........47
...Slack32-kde..12........1......68.......37......7...........11........86
...Slack64-kde..12........1......80.......37......7............9.........96
...Slack64-xfce..12.......10.....65.......30......4............7.........76
..CrbangLite-64..3.........7......31.......12......4...........4.........39

Bio-....Win98.....40.......30.....50.......3.......9............14.......73
star.....XP.........47........30.....50......12......7............11.......68
..........Puppy.....8..........2......50......11......6............20.......76
.....Slack-xfce....25........0......86.......29.....5.............20......111
...Crunchbang....12........0......60.......14.....5.............5........70

DFI....Win98......30.......30.....38.......4.......3.............14......55
...........XP.........40.......30.....50.......12.....7.............12.......69
.........Puppy......8..........2......42.......9.......7.............18......67
...Crunchbang....16........0......52.......15.....7..............5.......64


Distributions downloaded, which failed in one fashion or another, included:
Vector lite (but, which had the best desktop photograph!!), mint 7, debian (several versions), ubuntu
(several versions), suse 64, fedora 64, mandriva 64, centos, tiny core, arch, bsd, solaris, mepis.

In some cases, the distro would not commence booting. In others, the boot process began, but could not
complete. Many distributions booted and installed perfectly, some of them however, failed to connect to
the internet. The majority of failed distributions however, succeeded in those tasks, but were unable to
play any music. These programs asked, dumbly, which application to use with the downloaded OGG
file....There was, in such a scenario, with many distributions, NOTHING for the user to choose from.
(But, why should the user be obliged to encounter such a ridiculous question? Is OGG a word processor,
a flight simulator, a brokerage accounting program, spell checker perhaps? What were they thinking???
Were they thinking???? --> NO.--"They" = those responsible for creating these many seriously flawed distributions, i.e. the aforementioned 25 coasters, which I now possess.)

This ego deflating scenario was ameliorated by two EXCELLENT distributions, and one adequate
distribution: Slackware, the defacto Linux standard, which was, by comparison with Puppy or Crunchbang, slow and awkward to install; it also failed to boot (i.e. 32 bit version, of course) on the DFI board, for whatever reason. Other managers loaded under Slackware, e.g. ICEWM, failed to connect to an
audio player. XFCE, highly touted, was useless on three other distributions (XUbuntu, Debian, Suse), and sluggish to start or
shutdown with Slackware. Puppy, a very good distribution, has a couple of small quirks, not least of
which, is that "power off" failed to turn off the power on the DFI board, a problem not observed with
either Crunchbang, or the M$ products, on the same board.

Crunchbang Linux is so clearly superior to all other distributions, including the Ubuntu parent of it, that it
is mysterious to me why these other distributions exist at all---other people must have had vastly different
experiences from mine. I tried Crunchbang last summer, after reading sleepsleep's original post, but, I had
been unable, at that time to succeed in getting the software to boot. I must have downloaded a new
version this past week, for the current version, both 32 bit, and 64 bit is simply EXCELLENT. Solaris and BSD are utterly worthless, in my hands.

Thanks again to SleepSleep, for introducing me to Crunchbang Linux: head and shoulders above all the
pretenders, and a couple of notches above the only other two distributions, in my experience, worth
wasting any time with, Puppy and Slackware.

Smile
Post 10 Oct 2009, 04:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
when very clean, win98 start (mp3 player at startup)in less than 16 seconds, XP in 30 seconds.
Post 10 Oct 2009, 05:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
edfed wrote:

when very clean, win98 start (mp3 player at startup)in less than 16 seconds, XP in 30 seconds
Thanks. Yes, I was surprised, really, at how slowly Linux starts up.
I would profit from your explaining how to make a "very clean" win98 start up. I don't really know what "very clean" means, nor how to achieve it.

The newest motherboard, in the data above, one which employs the Intel chip set G41, will not permit installation of win98. I don't know why.

I am a little surprised that XP is so much slower to turn off, than win98. In that regard, I was also astonished, frankly, after weeks and weeks of reading about how much "leaner" XFCE is, compared with KDE or Gnome, to observe that it takes three times as long to shut down as does Puppy (Jwm manager) or CrunchBang (OpenBox manager).

It is rather clear, looking at these data, that very little effort has been expended, to clean up the code from decades and decades of poor programming, in the case of most of these Linux distros. The emphasis seems to be instead on acquiring pretty images for the user to look at....

The time comparison which most impressed me, from the data above, was the one comparing Crunchbang 32, with 64. Why is the 32 bit version faster than the 64 bit version???? Why isn't the 64 bit version nearly twice as fast as the 32 bit version? Across machines, why isn't the 32 bit Crunchbang running on a 1Ghz machine three times slower than the 32 bit Crunchbang running on a 3 GHz machine? I think revolution's quote may play a role here, in explaining the answer to some of these questions....

I do think there may be something useful to be learned from studying how these different operating systems commence and shut down, in attempting to construct one's own operating system....

Smile
Post 10 Oct 2009, 10:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.