OSDev.org

Hi,

ASHLEY4 wrote: Do you not think, you may be better off waiting a bit, Before making a 64 bit OS, These are Y i think you should wait a bit .
1) There is just, Not enough info on programming them yet :'( .
2) They will be more likely to be open to viruse's (By this i mean that the viruse's writer's are more likely to find loop holes in a new processor :'( .
3) They will be slower than 32 bit in some application's :'( .
4) There will be alot of people that get 64bit process and then not be able to get programs or have problem with them and be put off :'( .

I would say wait 2 year and then go for it .

Everything is IMHO...

1) There's enough information from both AMD and Intel to make an OS for it if you are familiar with IA-32 OS development and have a CPU new enough to test it all on.

2) Virus writers are going to be as much of a problem for any new OS, regardless of the architecture it's written for. If your OS is even slightly secure most virus writers will target Microsoft's OSs instead because they are much more wide spread (and Microsoft has large welcome mats out for a variety of internet based attacks).

3) I think the extra registers will make 64 bit faster, but I've no way of testing this theory.

4) For any new OS there will be no applications to start with (for any architecture), unless you write yet another Unix clone (in which case I don't know why you'd bother - use the 64 bit version of Linux).


Cheers,

Brendan

Hi

3) I think the extra registers will make 64 bit faster, but I've no way of testing this theory.

Yes it should make it faster for some things (high res graphics etc),But may also make it slower for other things.

Also remember MS have been having trouble with a 64bit XP ver.

ASHLEY4.

Thinking about AMD64:

ASHLEY4 wrote: 1) There is just, Not enough info on programming them yet :'( .

Maybe you should read the manuals.

2) They will be more likely to be open to viruse's (By this i mean that the viruse's writer's are more likely to find loop holes in a new processor :'( .

The AMD64 design has features to reduce virus loopholes, such as NX (No Execute) bits in page table entries.

3) They will be slower than 32 bit in some application's :'( .

32-bit code runs just as fast. 64-bit code manipulating 64-bit data runs faster than 32-bit code manipulating 64-bit quantities.

Of course, as I just said elsewhere, never claim one thing is faster than another without hard data. Anyone want to send me a 64-bit CPU?

4) There will be alot of people that get 64bit process and then not be able to get programs or have problem with them and be put off :'( .

64-bit programs have been around for some time. MSDN has had information on porting to 64-bit Windows for several years, since Microsoft started selling 64-bit Windows. Linux has been ported to many 64-bit platforms, including AMD64.

Conclusion: You're talking rubbish.

** displaced **

Sorry, I should have used a smiley back there... ::)

@ ASHLEY4:

If you ever have to worry about virus coders, you have won. Welcome to the elusive circle of really successful operating systems. When was Linux last targeted by a virus?

Documentation... the official docs are perfectly available. As for tutorials, well, you don't get many for e.g. PowerPC, either.

As for being slower "in some applications"... that means they are faster in others, right? They will be build in ever larger numbers, and the IA32 family is bound to come to an end sooner or later. So why not getting started with writing some hobby OS code for them?

@Solar: maybe Linux isn't target for viruses for it's not so widespread as windows? It's plain easy, provided the needed knowledge is present in the committants brain, to write virii for the windows platform - and to spread them. May I take the liberty to point your attention towards the Windows Scripting Engine (or so - don't know by heart. I mean this Active X thing).

@ASHLEY4: ere you tell the G?tz-von-Berlichingen-cite to others 's, think: There's no need for *that* kind of language *here*,*man*!
]:-<

Solar wrote: If you ever have to worry about virus coders, you have won. Welcome to the elusive circle of really successful operating systems. When was Linux last targeted by a virus?

Some months ago actually. There are even 36 viruses for Linux! Well... if you count each variation as a separate virus... Still, compared to 89000+ for windows, it's nothing. The point behind it is still that even though Linux is possibly in the meantime an even nicer target than Winboxes (more linux servers, servers have higher bandwidth, no competition from other viruses), it's harder, so they won't do it. The only thing you don't want is your OS being the easiest to hack from the mainstream oses.

Ashley4, you're talking total rubbish. Read up on the difference between IA64 and AMD64.

BI lazy wrote: @Solar: maybe Linux isn't target for viruses for it's not so widespread as windows?

That's exactly what I was implying. Linux has the next biggest market share to Windows, and even there exploits are rare while perfectly possible...

@ASHLEY4: ere you tell the G?tz-von-Berlichingen-cite to others 's, think: There's no need for *that* kind of language *here*,*man*!

What language :-* and a but .
** displaced again **

ASHLEY4.

Don't feed the troll.

Don't flame me but....
I don't think the Windows architecture alone is the cause for the no. of viruses it is affected with. Most virus programmers are freelance programmers who love Linux and the free(??) way of programming, so they tend to target to target Windows systems more to show how inferior they are compared to Linux (IMHO of course).

Neo wrote: Most virus programmers are freelance programmers who love Linux and the free(??) way of programming, so they tend to target to target Windows systems more to show how inferior they are compared to Linux (IMHO of course).

someone who loves X will rather put energy in showing how X is better than Y ... But for sure the 'image' of Microsoft has as much importance in the amount of viruses targetted at windows. Quite as well as the 'average'ness of many windows users.

Pype.Clicker wrote: someone who loves X will rather put energy in showing how X is better than Y ... But for sure the 'image' of Microsoft has as much importance in the amount of viruses targetted at windows. Quite as well as the 'average'ness of many windows users.

IMO, there are more than one reason viruses are so prevalent on Windows systems

- Windows users are not educated to work with their system, and do not want to become educated. Using something without knowing how it works is inherently stupid, consider 3-year-olds trying out a knife, without knowing what it does.
- Windows itself is repeatedly full of holes. Microsoft patches its newest "safest, best Windows ever" on average every few days to a week (counting only critical security patches, windows XP, since SP1 to now). Users do not apply patches (my computer was whining about [critical] patches, but I clicked the window away, which I heard from at least 3 different people last two weeks).
- The design of Windows is flawed. I cannot cite the reference, but someone has proven that there is an unfixable hole in the Win32 API, which when fixed would break compatibility with 99-100% of all programs currently available. Microsoft has commented that since it's only available for local exploits and since it's hard to exploit that they're not going to fix it and instead keep using win32.
- The basis of Windows is very old and very buggy. Windows is still based on DOS, and still must run most DOS programs. It must also provide compatibility with older programs, including those that rely on the Windows system memory concerning their process being writable. Also, consider things like FAT32, which is a very rudimentary and simplistic implementation of a filesystem.
- It's very widespread and available. Whatever your intentions, if they're accomplished with many computers and with many connections, you're in a very good position having 2 million computers running Windows that you can use. 2 million times a 32kbit upstream still equates 8 GBITs.

Considering this all, there are a lot of things you could do better. The corresponding points:
- Educate your users before allowing them to use the system. Even though it's very hard to push through, educating users (or at least allowing them to be educated without spending another load of cash) will increase the usability of your system, without people installing all sorts of weird software that only claims to protect you (consider the amount of people that install virus scanners, firewalls, privacy tools etc. only to think that they automatically are used and updated..).
- Do not publish your system unless you test it thoroughly. Disable compiling of programs using buggy functions (yes, you too posix/iso!) such as strcpy and strcat. Encourage use of a type-safe language (Java, VB). If not possible, encourage use of a language that allows a programmer to shield himself once after which s/he is permanently shielded (C++).
- Design your system according to a new design. Both the old traditional designs are provably bad (Windows because of the API, Linux because it still supports the same flaws that are in the stdlib for over 30 years now). Consider the implications any of your choices might have on any other function or use. Do not consider your OS designed when you've thought about it for 3 weeks or something similar. Your design isn't tested until you've tested your implementation and found it to be good.
- Design your OS on a good basis. Do not use a filesystem such as FAT or an operating base of BIOS functions, if only because they are very buggy, and you cannot be sure that it actually works correctly. Use only code that you can debug. Things you cannot debug can only cause you trouble.
- You do want your OS to be widespread and available, but not as the "main" OS. Just keep normal competition levels (as soon as they're restored in this market segment) so all OSes get an equal share of users.

In any case, we're way off topic concerning 64-bits OSdev. Anyone got a question to go back to topic?

Windows NT/2000/XP are not based on DOS.

srg