Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/09/10/06:51:31
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:05:28 -0400, "Richard Krehbiel"
<krehbiel AT crosslink DOT net> wrote:
>Michael Kearns <michael AT toobie DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> wrote in message
>news:37d7913a DOT 10901976 AT news-reader DOT bt DOT net...
>>
>> The idea is to retain the whole 'feel' of DOS, whilst providing
>>enhancements like: 64Bit Filesystem with proper long filenames,
>>while providing backwards compatibility through the IO services.
>>Multitasking and TCP/IP built into the 'kernel'.
>
>May I offer a suggestion? Boot up Win NT, start "MS-DOS Prompt" (heh heh),
>pop it to full screen text mode. I offer this as a good model for such a
>modern new command-line OS. Provide the Win32 APIs and ABI needed to
>support command-line programs.
Ah yes. Why not use WinNT console mode, as it's far superior... hmm.
And as for implementing the win32 APIs.. Why ?? I mean, they're not exactly
the best model I can use, and if I'm going to do this properly, it makes
sense to do it as best I can. Besides, do you really want to have to install
all of Windows NT just to use the command line ??? Sheesh !
>Phar Lap's TNT DOS extender may already be what I'm thinking of - minus the
>file systems and network stack.
Well, there are a few commercial DOS implementations that provide 1 or 2 of
the ideas, but none that come anywhere near a serious upgrade with all of
the features.
>I wonder if WINE code could be used as a starting point?
If you wanted to follow that line (your win32 APIs) then the freedows
project and indeed WINE would be good places to start. I believe Trumpet are
about to release a win32 compatible OS shortly as well.
As for me, I'm sticking with my DOS ideas. It does seem that everybody has
already ruled out an improved DOS as worthwhile (I can't see why), but I
shall persevere.
After all, *all* of the OSs sit on the x86 chip, and compile down to the
same machine code, so there's no reason why one can't be as good as the
next.
Regards,
Michael.
- Raw text -