What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Looks good!omarrx024 wrote:New window theme on real HW in video mode 1366x768x32bpp.
Do you have a GUI console implementation?
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Thanks!Ch4ozz wrote:Looks good!
Do you have a GUI console implementation?
No, and I don't plan to add support for console UI in my kernel. Although it is definitely possible to implement this in userspace.
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
You are 1360 x 768 God.omarrx024 wrote:New window theme on real HW in video mode 1366x768x32bpp.
Just curious, VESA or BGA? That is freaking amazing, I can't reach more than 1024x768x32 w/ VESA.
It looks amazing, it is not much, but it is very very very exciting. Good job!
OS: Basic OS
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
It's VESA. Real hardware doesn't support BGA, and I don't have a BGA driver.thehardcoreOS wrote:You are 1360 x 768 God.
Just curious, VESA or BGA? That is freaking amazing, I can't reach more than 1024x768x32 w/ VESA.
It looks amazing, it is not much, but it is very very very exciting. Good job!
Technically, reaching any resolution with VESA is all the same; just don't depend on hardcoded mode numbers and you can achieve any resolution supported by the BIOS/monitor configuration.
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Very interesting. Can GRUB enabled VESA support custom resolutions like that?omarrx024 wrote:It's VESA. Real hardware doesn't support BGA, and I don't have a BGA driver.thehardcoreOS wrote:You are 1360 x 768 God.
Just curious, VESA or BGA? That is freaking amazing, I can't reach more than 1024x768x32 w/ VESA.
It looks amazing, it is not much, but it is very very very exciting. Good job!
Technically, reaching any resolution with VESA is all the same; just don't depend on hardcoded mode numbers and you can achieve any resolution supported by the BIOS/monitor configuration.
OS: Basic OS
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
- Kazinsal
- Member
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:38 pm
- Libera.chat IRC: Kazinsal
- Location: Vancouver
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
VBE is interesting because on some cards it's just a dumb emulation and on others it's fairly well-stocked with resolutions. On a couple that I've encountered, it actually pulls its mode tables from a section of system memory, so if you know how to craft the numbers required by the VESA Generalized Timing Formula, you can inject new modes into the list and the VBE code will happily set high resolution video modes of your design.
This is kind of off-topic though. Perhaps I'll write a wiki article on it.
This is kind of off-topic though. Perhaps I'll write a wiki article on it.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Well, I would really like to see a wiki article about that.Kazinsal wrote:VBE is interesting because on some cards it's just a dumb emulation and on others it's fairly well-stocked with resolutions. On a couple that I've encountered, it actually pulls its mode tables from a section of system memory, so if you know how to craft the numbers required by the VESA Generalized Timing Formula, you can inject new modes into the list and the VBE code will happily set high resolution video modes of your design.
This is kind of off-topic though. Perhaps I'll write a wiki article on it.
Lets not go off-topic so here is my keyboard finally fixed.
- Attachments
-
- finallyKeyboardCharacters.png (8.89 KiB) Viewed 4432 times
Last edited by Octacone on Thu May 11, 2017 12:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
OS: Basic OS
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
-
- Member
- Posts: 1146
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:59 pm
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Although that's probably going to be card-specific enough that you might as well write actual card drivers.Kazinsal wrote:On a couple that I've encountered, it actually pulls its mode tables from a section of system memory, so if you know how to craft the numbers required by the VESA Generalized Timing Formula, you can inject new modes into the list and the VBE code will happily set high resolution video modes of your design.
When you start writing an OS you do the minimum possible to get the x86 processor in a usable state, then you try to get as far away from it as possible.
Syntax checkup:
Wrong: OS's, IRQ's, zero'ing
Right: OSes, IRQs, zeroing
Syntax checkup:
Wrong: OS's, IRQ's, zero'ing
Right: OSes, IRQs, zeroing
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
I don't use GRUB. Probably it can; but on hardware that doesn't support these custom resolutions your kernel won't boot. In general, using GRUB for video modes is easy but has many disadvantages.thehardcoreOS wrote:Very interesting. Can GRUB enabled VESA support custom resolutions like that?
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Yeah, it is better to write your own VESA VBE 3.0 then mess with GRUB.omarrx024 wrote:I don't use GRUB. Probably it can; but on hardware that doesn't support these custom resolutions your kernel won't boot. In general, using GRUB for video modes is easy but has many disadvantages.thehardcoreOS wrote:Very interesting. Can GRUB enabled VESA support custom resolutions like that?
The thing I "hate" when using GRUB VESA is that you can't control when it sets it. For example I want to enter GRUB VESA video mode only when I type "start-gui" but can't do that because of GRUB.
OS: Basic OS
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
About: 32 Bit Monolithic Kernel Written in C++ and Assembly, Custom FAT 32 Bootloader
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
I use VBE 2.0, not VBE 3.0. VBE 2.0 really has everything I need: a linear framebuffer and 32-/24-bit modes. If I recall correctly, 24-bit modes were support in VBE 1.2 as well, but I don't use it because I don't want to use bank switching. I think VBE 3.0 is just like VBE 2.0 but with a protected mode interface. Anyway, Bochs doesn't support VBE 3.0.octacone wrote:Yeah, it is better to write your own VESA VBE 3.0 then mess with GRUB.
The thing I "hate" when using GRUB VESA is that you can't control when it sets it. For example I want to enter GRUB VESA video mode only when I type "start-gui" but can't do that because of GRUB.
There are workarounds around this problem with GRUB; but I guess this is getting too off-topic.
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
- BrightLight
- Member
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:11 am
- Location: Maadi, Cairo, Egypt
- Contact:
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
I'm sorry but I can't help posting here, lol. Too much free time in my hands. My scheduler is obviously keeping the CPU usage very low.
When the CPU is idle, it really is a constant loop of "sti; hlt; call yield", and yield gives control to the running tasks, both of which are waiting for mouse click (which is a GUI event), and so they call yield again, returning to the idle task.
CPU usage is apparently very little over 0.002%.
When the CPU is idle, it really is a constant loop of "sti; hlt; call yield", and yield gives control to the running tasks, both of which are waiting for mouse click (which is a GUI event), and so they call yield again, returning to the idle task.
CPU usage is apparently very little over 0.002%.
- Attachments
-
- cpu usage.png (4.76 KiB) Viewed 4310 times
You know your OS is advanced when you stop using the Intel programming guide as a reference.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Nice, it's a great buzz.omarrx024 wrote: CPU usage is apparently very little over 0.002%.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
How many loops per second?omarrx024 wrote:When the CPU is idle, it really is a constant loop of "sti; hlt; call yield", and yield gives control to the running tasks, both of which are waiting for mouse click (which is a GUI event), and so they call yield again, returning to the idle task.
CPU usage is apparently very little over 0.002%.
How fast is the core?
How does it come out of hlt?