Q. No, not Windows, Linux, Mac; that's commercial-quality, insanely difficult to manage, and beyond the scope of many books.
I mean a simple 16-bit bootloader, and maybe some conditional-based microarchitecture-specific logic, data comparisons, maybe 100 KB of memory use at max, small hangman style game, and possibly moving up to a super-tiny (SUPER, SUPER, TINY) GUI.
I know most software developers, like me, would be skeptical of this, but I'm not kidding.
I really plan to work my way through with this in some rational form.
Does this sound crazy, just one person doing and managing the resources, even in just a 16-bit BIOS-dictated environment with services helping from it?
For the GUI I'd best switch to Protected Mode (or 32-bit mode) to stretch out and solve the memory problem.
But that would likely take me years to ever get that far and complete of an OS somewhat.
I mean a simple 16-bit bootloader, and maybe some conditional-based microarchitecture-specific logic, data comparisons, maybe 100 KB of memory use at max, small hangman style game, and possibly moving up to a super-tiny (SUPER, SUPER, TINY) GUI.
I know most software developers, like me, would be skeptical of this, but I'm not kidding.
I really plan to work my way through with this in some rational form.
Does this sound crazy, just one person doing and managing the resources, even in just a 16-bit BIOS-dictated environment with services helping from it?
For the GUI I'd best switch to Protected Mode (or 32-bit mode) to stretch out and solve the memory problem.
But that would likely take me years to ever get that far and complete of an OS somewhat.
A. Doesn't sound crazy to me, but it would be a long and involved process. You could look to old computer systems for examples of how to work with very little memory by today's standards. The IBM 1401 was a transistor-based computer and typically maxed out at 16K core memory, and could be special ordered with a max of 32K core.
The Apple ][ came with 16K RAM, and maxed out at 48K. While the base OS was stored in ROM, the DOS (disk operating system) extension occupied some of RAM.
Honeywell mainframes of the 1970's used 4K overlay modules to minimize memory usage. Just a simple command like "create directory" might run through 1 or 2 dozen overlay modules.
However, all of the above examples ran command line interfaces (CLI) with no attempt at a GUI. GUI has a relatively high memory demand.
All of the above OS's were also all written in assembler: IBM 360 and later mainframe OS in BAL (basic assembly language), Honeywell GCOS-III was written in GMAP (General Macro Assembler Program), and Apple OS in 6502 assembler. But I imagine that isn't necessary today unless you really want to save every byte possible.
The Apple ][ came with 16K RAM, and maxed out at 48K. While the base OS was stored in ROM, the DOS (disk operating system) extension occupied some of RAM.
Honeywell mainframes of the 1970's used 4K overlay modules to minimize memory usage. Just a simple command like "create directory" might run through 1 or 2 dozen overlay modules.
However, all of the above examples ran command line interfaces (CLI) with no attempt at a GUI. GUI has a relatively high memory demand.
All of the above OS's were also all written in assembler: IBM 360 and later mainframe OS in BAL (basic assembly language), Honeywell GCOS-III was written in GMAP (General Macro Assembler Program), and Apple OS in 6502 assembler. But I imagine that isn't necessary today unless you really want to save every byte possible.
Best Linux for an older computer with not so great specs?
Q. I have an old machine kicking around and I want to get linux running on it. It runs windows XP right now but it has very little RAM. I am not very technical at all so any help would be greatly appreciated :)
A. DSL, Puppy or Tiny Core will run on almost any hardware, but, as they are all quickly downloadable, try them all & see which you like best. And don't dismiss any of the "mainframe" sized distros, as they can run well on limited hardware, as has been said.
My old laptop is about to crash and burn need to get new one?
Q. Does anyone out there know what is the VERY BEST of the new small laptop's. I only have this ACER one 2 and a half years and found it very reliable - well up till now.
Have been told that the ASUS Eee PC 1000 is good - is it or is there a better one in the same price range
Have been told that the ASUS Eee PC 1000 is good - is it or is there a better one in the same price range
A. The Acer Aspire One is a really great netbook. Netbooks are basically all the same; dual core Intel Atom processor at 1.6GHz, about 1GB of RAM, Linux or XP operating system, tiny screen, tiny keyboard, and different hard drive ranges.
The Acer Aspire One is a great netbook because you get to customize it to fit your needs. They range from 8.9 inch to 10.1 inch for the screen. The Intel Atom is one of the best netbook processors. You can pick from 512MB to 1GB of RAM. You can choose either the Linux or the Microsoft operating system. And you can choose a SSD or a magnetic hard drive.
My experiences with the Acer Aspire One were great.
The Acer Aspire One is a great netbook because you get to customize it to fit your needs. They range from 8.9 inch to 10.1 inch for the screen. The Intel Atom is one of the best netbook processors. You can pick from 512MB to 1GB of RAM. You can choose either the Linux or the Microsoft operating system. And you can choose a SSD or a magnetic hard drive.
My experiences with the Acer Aspire One were great.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment