In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phoebus Dokos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>All the system variables, Basic variables, interrupts, vectors, traps >>whouldn't be there any more so we'd have to either code in C - oops, forgot, >>we can't, no C compiler :o) > >True partially. A compiler could be (relatively) easily written. For >example, C68 exists already for many platforms (among them MS-DOS) and I >believe Keith and Dave are ALWAYS up for a challenge :-) > >>It just wouldn't be QDOSMSQ any more toto !! > >I don't agree with you... the essence of an operating system is its >framework... This would be preserved... Furthermore, as we have discussed >in the past in this list, a turn towards a more-Unix like approach for the >OS kernel would benefit us greatly. (Higher level language for drivers etc...) > >>Nice mental exercise though. >From what I gather, Intel are going StrongARM with the next generation of processors. That is abandoning the MIPS processors in favour of the RISC processors. It just so happens that StrongARM was developed in Cambridge, England, and scorned for many years by Intel and M$ :-) ... and emerged out of Sinclairs one time great rival Acorn Computers. So, recompiling QDOS / SMSQ for a new life on new hardware platforms is not such a bad idea. If the idea is good enough, there will be someone who will do it. Perhaps they have even realised it is the end of the road in sight for Windows ... and they need a better OS for the new hardware :-) Optimistic, or what ? -- Malcolm Cadman
