Hmmm, it's that time of year again
So I had a good idea for a flaming (I need it since it's cold in
Pennsylvania now ;-)
What about rewriting QDOS/SMS (or converting the assembly sources) in order
to run NATIVELY on x86 processors.
There are a number of nice tools available for that
Phoebus,
You are really sad :o)
Why leave a perfectly good Greece for a home in Pennsylvania ?
I can see a couple of (minor) flaws with your suggestion, but as an
exercise, it appeals to my sense of humor quite a bit. The flaws are :
what happens if we use PortAsm/68K and there are bugs in
At 01:50 ìì 10/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Phoebus,
You are really sad :o)
Oh yeah! :-)
Why leave a perfectly good Greece for a home in Pennsylvania ?
Hmmm I still wonder, but fear not I'll be back to Europe soon (3/4
years... once I am done with college)... It's plainly too dangerous at
Have you SEEN Intel assembly - it is awful !
:O)
The NASM syntax is better - using brackets for all address expressions
and not bothering with % signs for registers makes it look clearer.
I find 68k assembler easier though. My only gripe is all those .Bs,
.Ws, etc. can make it look a mess.
I
I wonder what is QPC overhead (it's not to offense Marcel : QPC is a great
product) : does anybody know the slowdown factor eaten by the emulator, or
in other word, what is the factor to apply to the speed of SMSQ under QPC to
have an idea of SMSQ speed written directly for x86 ?
Claude
Ian,
BTW I missed most of the assembler articles in QL Toady. Are they
available online, or as back issues?
Not yet I'm afraid, but I'm sure that there are back issues available.
The main problem is, I write one article but Jochen decides that I cannot be
allowed to use up 80% of the
Phoebus,
Then again QDOS DOES have bugs anyways...every program does :-) (Even
yours
;-)) Remember some funny things with FP numbers about 1 year ago?)
hehe
No I don't remember (honest) I remember some problems with QLiberator though
! And what bugs do you refer to :o)
Regards,
Trolling
Writing an OS for a processor family is nothing, compared to the needed writing for
peripheral supports.
So, as well as generic x86 support, what about GENERIC x86 compatible supports
of hardware in the OS. Natively of course, NO PC BIOS. (there is no Bios on some
embeded card, so
At 02:52 ìì 10/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Phoebus,
Then again QDOS DOES have bugs anyways...every program does :-) (Even
yours
;-)) Remember some funny things with FP numbers about 1 year ago?)
hehe
No I don't remember (honest) I remember some problems with QLiberator though
! And
At 04:10 ìì 10/10/2001 +0200, you wrote:
Trolling
Writing an OS for a processor family is nothing, compared to the needed
writing for peripheral supports.
So, as well as generic x86 support, what about GENERIC x86 compatible supports
of hardware in the OS. Natively of course, NO PC BIOS.
At 10:34 ðì 10/10/2001 -0500, you wrote:
At 02:52 ìì 10/10/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Phoebus,
Then again QDOS DOES have bugs anyways...every program does :-) (Even
yours
;-)) Remember some funny things with FP numbers about 1 year ago?)
hehe
No I don't remember (honest) I remember some
Oh, those bugs !
I remember now - I must get around to fixing them !!!
Norman.
-
Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Database/Unix administrator Phone: 0113 289 6265
Hmmm, an easier approach might be to write a version of SMSQ as an
XFree86-style user interface to run on Linux. The hardware support is
then already done and QDOS filesystems could be implemented with
QXL.WIN files. Produce an SMSQ/QDOS API and you could write programs
using familiar OS
Re:
It is not you, Tony, it is the setting that John has I believe ... which
has been changed from - Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii .
Possibly to a M$ alternative :-(
Yep - that is what the TP programmers tell me.
They _very_ politely advise that Malcolm ditch his ISP.
Not a QL topic
In message Hb5f1151beb4.1002729565.ln4p1327.ldn.swissbank.com@MHS,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Norman has just sent me the texts of his articles, but the back issues
are still of interest generally.
Back in the late '70s/early '80s I used to buy computing mags like
Practical Computing and
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)
In message 004101c151a3$0b97c760$3ca66fd4@o5e1c0, John Hitchcock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Re:
It is not you, Tony, it is the setting that John has I believe ... which
has been changed from - Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii .
Possibly to a M$ alternative :-(
Yep - that is what the TP
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
QL Toady back issues:-
Clip
Never bought any as I've been a subscriber from day one :-))
Are you sure that wasn't the 'day after', day one ... :-)
--
Malcolm Cadman
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
k, Norman Dunbar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
-
Norman Dunbar EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Database/Unix administratorPhone: 0113 289 6265
Fax:
Claude Mourier 00 wrote:
I wonder what is QPC overhead (it's not to offense Marcel : QPC is a great
product) : does anybody know the slowdown factor eaten by the emulator, or
in other word, what is the factor to apply to the speed of SMSQ under QPC to
have an idea of SMSQ speed written
20 matches
Mail list logo
