RE: Coming real soon!
On 21 Jul 2001, at 21:29, sephiroth _ wrote:
>
> Kat wrote:
> > If i am not mistaken, you can use the translator to make a command.com,
> > and you'll have an OS, just build around interrupts rather than C-calls.
> > Much
> > like writing timer interrupts, if you do it right you can prioritize
> > interrupt
> > execution to any granularity, and set permission flags like *nix. Lets see
> > windoze do that.
>
> a shell is not to be mistaken for an operating system. sure, you could
> write an alternative CLI for DOS, but that doesn't hide DOS itself. it's
> still there, supporting your CLI. if you want to write a real OS, you
> can't depend on interrupts to back you up. you have to code everything
> yourself: basic drivers, file system(unless you use one that already
> exists), kernel(unless you borrow or modify someone else's), etc. I'm
> not sure if it would be possible with DOS or Windows, but as long as you
> don't use any of the OS' standard C functions and just write your own,
> it works at least with ELF(go to www.gaztek.org and download the GazOS
> source. it's not the best OS, considering the "commands" are built right
> into the kernel :)
Didn't someone write an easy way to drop machine code into memory in
Eu?? I mentioned the command.com first only because it would be nice to
be able to grab one interrupt at a time out from under dos until you get your
OS working, rather than start from scratch. I suppose i should have
elaborated more? No OS = no easy screen display routines, no useable
keybd, no decent harddrive, etc,, altho you could use the BIOS ints for some
access. The BIOS itself nowadays has a microOS so you can change the
bios itself. Seems to me, unless you have a emulator, it's simply easier to
start with something that already exists, and make it better. Several people
here on the list have the skills to write a new programming language (David
has written several), but we need to start somewhere. Starting with the first
byte the cpu wakes up at is doing things the hard way, imho, since you can
always grab it later when you are done with your new OS.
When i started hacking on the C64, i began with new commands, and next
thing you know, i had new commands to run code in the background using
the cpu on the floppy drive (descrete hardware multitasking), and the puter
itself was time-slice multitasking. If someone had not introduced me to some
hand-me-down ibm clones, i was planning on hypercubes of 6502s with the
C64 acting as the human interface. Yeas, i know the C64 used a 6510, but
the 65xx family has several better cpus in it. Btw, did you know the C64,
with an extra video chip, could run different programs on two separate
monitors at the same time? And with another card, could "read" NTSC (and
prolly PAL too) video feeds? Support for multiple sound chips was fun too!
So i know a little about OSs.
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
