64 bit Menuet 0.59 released
in [ASM]
|
From: rhyde on 28 Feb 2007 16:47 On Feb 27, 9:25 am, Betov <b...(a)free.fr> wrote: > > And as long as Linux has been a complete failure, at all points > of views, Wow. All those servers out in the real world running Linux suggest otherwise. And the fact that Dell has started shipping Linux on its boxes suggests something other than failure. And let's not forget the OLPC initiative. And, of course, all those countries out there that are officially pushing Open Source Software (read: Linux) because they hate Microsoft so much. Of course, companies like Red Hat and Novel are laughing all the way to the bank over their failures. Gosh, I wish I had a product that was failing in every way as Linux is failing. > the only remaining little hope is with ReactOS. Which has zero market penetration. And will probably never have a perceptible penetration in the market. As you, yourself, have pointed out, Windows is FREE. It comes on just about every machine you buy today (well, at least 90% of them, anyway). Even if ReactOS were 100% finished and absolutely reliable, why would any average user ever want to screw around with it? Their machine comes with the *real thing*, not a clone. Windows is already installed; it already works; and there are no patent issues to be resolved (and if Microsoft thinks that Linux violates MS' patents, imagine what it's going to think about ReactOS). You live in a dream world, Rene. > > Now, if some Asmer may have fun at developping an Assembly OS, > instead of doing anything serious, this is a nother story, but > one thing is 100% sure, is that they will never get any user, > whatever quality they could achieve, aven admitting - i don't - > that this quality would be better than Windows. Even if it was > free, even if it was way better at all points of view, nobody > would ever use it. Well,... GeoWorks was not free, but... ReactOS is free, but... Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: Jim Carlock on 28 Feb 2007 21:01 "Frank Kotler" asked... : Anyone had experience with "USB sticks" as an "OS development" : medium? Not sure what that means, but I hear that new things are able to boot off USB devices now. I'll add that I've had excellent success with USB sticks. A 256MB stick purchased about 3 years ago went through the washer and dryer once a couple years ago and still holds all of its data 100% intact. I recently received another 128MB stick free with the purchase of some blank CDs. It works rather well. I don't feel up to testing the washer and dryer with that one, but who knows, maybe it'll happen one day in the near future, just don't plan on such things. I sure don't! It's firmware, and I don't think they have batteries, and I've had the first one unplugged for a few days at a time, and I used to know what that type of RAM was called back in the early 1990s. I've used it with 8 year old motherboards successfully, so the USB compatibility is great, even Win98 works well with it. Hope this helps, some. -- Jim Carlock Post replies to the group.
From: Wolfgang Kern on 28 Feb 2007 22:09 Jim Carlock replied to Frank Kotler's quwstion: > : Anyone had experience with "USB sticks" as an "OS development" > : medium? Hi, seems I missed to read this line. The idea to use USB-RAM for OS-development sounds great, BUT.. You need one working environment as 'the tool' which allow to test new OS code parts immediate (without frequent reboot). My problem would be that my current OS know only keyboard, mouse and old modems on USB. These RAM-Sticks are all a bit different and only M$ may have enough hardware information to support most of it. So when the new OS boots from USB it must already contain working USB loader/drivers/routines as the BIOS is of little help here. __ wolfgang
From: Jim Carlock on 1 Mar 2007 00:55 "Wolfgang Kern" stated... : You need one working environment as 'the tool' which allow to : test new OS code parts immediate (without frequent reboot). : : My problem would be that my current OS know only keyboard, : mouse and old modems on USB. These RAM-Sticks are all a : bit different and only M$ may have enough hardware information : to support most of it. XPSP2 driver for both USB sticks (two different models, one a 256MB SanDisk, the other an unknown name brand) ... %systemroot%\system32\drivers\VolSnap.sys 08/03/2004 10:00 PM 52,352 volsnap.sys I do not think either one of mine are bootable... but perhaps the drivers only need to get installed into the BIOS on the mainboard? : So when the new OS boots from USB it must already contain : working USB loader/drivers/routines as the BIOS is of little help : here. USB network cards should be bootable as well, right? Back in 1998 or 1999 Intel promoted bootable PCI network interfaces. One Microsoft / Intel event I attended demonstrated a NIC that booted off a remote server, and the OS sent commands back and forth between the driveless client and ran some of the new terminals on the client, off the server (Terminal Server). Then the other way I see it working, bootable USB memory retains a BIOS, like the bootable network cards, and respond as disk drives, just as a hard disk would. If it acts like a disk drive, it is a disk drive and PCI is only the funnel that moves information about. http://www.digg.com/linux_unix/Create_a_bootable_USB_disk_with_DSL http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/store/Mini_ITX_Systems/Damn_Small_Machine http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/usb.html And the following link looks like pretty good reading. http://www.bootdisk.com/pendrive.htm Microsoft talks about bootable USB-CDs and USB-Flash Drives (UFDs)... http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/usb-boot.mspx -- Jim Carlock Post replies to the group.
From: robertwessel2 on 1 Mar 2007 02:23
On Feb 28, 11:55 pm, "Jim Carlock" <anonym...(a)127.0.0.1> wrote: > : So when the new OS boots from USB it must already contain > : working USB loader/drivers/routines as the BIOS is of little help > : here. > > USB network cards should be bootable as well, right? Back in > 1998 or 1999 Intel promoted bootable PCI network interfaces. > One Microsoft / Intel event I attended demonstrated a NIC that > booted off a remote server, and the OS sent commands back > and forth between the driveless client and ran some of the new > terminals on the client, off the server (Terminal Server). > > Then the other way I see it working, bootable USB memory retains > a BIOS, like the bootable network cards, and respond as disk > drives, just as a hard disk would. If it acts like a disk drive, it is a > disk drive and PCI is only the funnel that moves information about. Most PC NICs (ISA/PCI/PCI-E) with boot ROMs just implement an Int 13 extension, so that the BIOS and boot loader thinks it's booting off an Int 13 supported disk. Usually the boot image is a floppy image stored on the appropriate server. This is similar to what happens in most cases when booting off a CD-ROM (usually the boot starts from a floppy image on the CD accessed via the Int 13 extension). The OS stays in real mode until it can load the real "disk" driver. Hardware iSCSI cards actually look like a SCSI device and not a network card, and boot much like any SCSI supported hard disk would (and those all implement Int 13 interfaces as well). Somewhat newer is EFI support, which replaces the BIOS functions, but provides the same functions. As to USB devices, there's no particular technical issue booting from such a device (other than needing USB stack and an appropriate Int 13 or EFI extension). Most BIOSs already have a USB stack just to support the USB keyboard and mouse. |