| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 44934 | 2004-05-03 22:24:00 | Win 2000 better than Win XP ? | Steve_L (763) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 234104 | 2004-05-07 05:35:00 | I agree with TonyF and Kiwibeat. All NT-Based OS's have their place, but personally I'd rather use Win98SE! They're all too insecure though.. Heck, even Linux as a Kernel itself has had a few insecurities.... Hamstar> You want to write an OS? Start with a kernel... And write it in.... Assembly!!! It'll be the best OS around! ...Then, build on it from there with a GUI etc, and write that in C++ if you please :-) Chill. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 234105 | 2004-05-07 05:53:00 | If I was king of the world there would be none of these "preferences" or free thinking. Of course, if I was king of the world everyone would be too busy in the salt mines to know any better..... |
metla (154) | ||
| 234106 | 2004-05-07 06:47:00 | > > Plus, xp with 128mb of ram > > is as fast as the machine I use at school (yes, it > > has 128mb of ram) that runs 2000 > > > > MM > > Which goes to prove that the hardware your using at > school is not as good as that with the XP on it. > > Cheers Murray ;P Now that is funny. Assumptions glalore yaaa................ |
mark.p (383) | ||
| 234107 | 2004-05-07 07:18:00 | > I agree with TonyF and Kiwibeat. > > All NT-Based OS's have their place, but personally > I'd rather use Win98SE! Now there's a wise chap. Hi Chill ! Tony |
TonyF (246) | ||
| 234108 | 2004-05-07 13:12:00 | >You want to write an OS? Start with a kernel... And write it in.... Assembly!!! It'll be the best OS around! >...Then, build on it from there with a GUI etc, and write that in C++ if you please I've done a little bit of programming but whats assembly and why would you use it for a kernel? |
willie_M (5608) | ||
| 234109 | 2004-05-07 13:26:00 | Assmembly code is the next best thing after machine code. You work with 3 character codes like ADD and it sends instructions directly to the cpu and memory registers. Very fast and it doesn't rely on other higher level languages which have their flaws themselves. |
KingWave (5517) | ||
| 234110 | 2004-05-07 14:14:00 | whoa! could you do that with a kernel? Wouldn't it be like... extremely limited? Wouldn't assembly then be low-level language? | willie_M (5608) | ||
| 234111 | 2004-05-07 14:18:00 | No, it wouldnt be limited, all apps basically become Assembly when compiled. Do this: Open up a command prompt (Start -->> Run -->> "cmd" or "command") type in: debug c:\windows\system32\notepad.exe Or in Win9x: debug c:\windows\notepad.exe When you're in debug, hit "u" and you'll see the first part of the app: PUSH CS POP DS etc. etc...... All apps become Assembly (in a nutshell). Its the smallest, fastest, most efficient way to write an app, but it can be time consuming, and looks incredibly daunting at first. The language isnt english such as if error_code_1 then run_appname. Its all written as you see in the debug window. Basically it'd be a bloody stable, fast, small, efficient kernel, though it'd take one hell of a lot of work! Make sense? Chill. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||