Page 155 of 262
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:35 am
by matt11235
octacone wrote:For my full screen mode I don't care about supported hardware or anything like that. I am going to make it 16:9 only, no other aspect ratios supported. I am not going to support any old hardware. I want my OS to be as futuristic as possible, getting rid of every non 2016 stuff. Resolutions are getting bigger and bigger: HD, Full HD, 2K, 4K, 8K. My OS is meant for newer hardware with some decent specs. If you have a 2002 laptop then this OS is not for you. I think that people over here should make their operating systems with 2016 standards in mind.
What about 9:16, 21:9 and 16:10? These aspect ratios are quite common too in 2016.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:28 am
by Octacone
zenzizenzicube wrote:
What about 9:16, 21:9 and 16:10? These aspect ratios are quite common too in 2016.
Yeah I will consider supporting 16:10 and 21:9.
Roman wrote:Have to agree with Omar.
> as futuristic as possible
> using BIOS
Burned! Shots fired! #rekt, you really got me with this one.
Hey hey hey, BIOS is still widely used standard and it is too early to think about UEFI.
omarrx024 wrote:
Then why don't you use 64-bit long mode? SSE? AVX? SMP? Hyperthreading? HPET? AHCI? NVMe?
Goals should always start small; otherwise you will always be disappointed.
64-bit long mode is scheduled for 3rd revision, SSE (is that related to graphics)? Don't know much about that, need to investigate. AHCI, that is planned for the future, why not? Hyperthreading, can one person even code that himself? Other ones I am not really familiar with.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:30 am
by Brendan
Hi,
octacone wrote:64-bit long mode is meant for 3rd revision, SSE (is that related to graphics)? Don't know much about that, need to investigate. AHCI, that is planned for the future, why not? Hyperthreading, can one person even code that himself? Other ones I am not really familiar with.
A quick summary:
- 64-bit long mode: introduced by AMD in 2001 (15 years ago).
- SSE ("Streaming SIMD Extensions"): Introduced by Intel in 1999 (17 years ago).
- AHCI: Introduced by Intel in 2004 (12 years ago).
- Hyperthreading: introduced by Intel in 2002 (14 years ago).
- EDID (used by an OS to detect things like aspect ratio so it can auto-adjust to any monitor): Introduced by VESA in 1998
Hyper-threading isn't something you support, it's something you optimise for. If you support "standard multi-CPU" (Intel, 1996) then you'll end up supporting hyper-threading by accident; but if your scheduler isn't "hyper-threading aware" it'll make bad decisions (e.g. make 2 threads share the same core when other cores are idle and make performance far worse than it could). It's easy enough for a lone developer to optimise for (after they've got support for "standard multi-CPU").
Cheers,
Brendan
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:06 am
by Octacone
Brendan wrote:Hi,
octacone wrote:64-bit long mode is meant for 3rd revision, SSE (is that related to graphics)? Don't know much about that, need to investigate. AHCI, that is planned for the future, why not? Hyperthreading, can one person even code that himself? Other ones I am not really familiar with.
A quick summary:
- 64-bit long mode: introduced by AMD in 2001 (15 years ago).
- SSE ("Streaming SIMD Extensions"): Introduced by Intel in 1999 (17 years ago).
- AHCI: Introduced by Intel in 2004 (12 years ago).
- Hyperthreading: introduced by Intel in 2002 (14 years ago).
- EDID (used by an OS to detect things like aspect ratio so it can auto-adjust to any monitor): Introduced by VESA in 1998
Hyper-threading isn't something you support, it's something you optimise for. If you support "standard multi-CPU" (Intel, 1996) then you'll end up supporting hyper-threading by accident; but if your scheduler isn't "hyper-threading aware" it'll make bad decisions (e.g. make 2 threads share the same core when other cores are idle and make performance far worse than it could). It's easy enough for a lone developer to optimise for (after they've got support for "standard multi-CPU").
Cheers,
Brendan
Hey Brendan.
I did not know all that. It is really shocking to hear that those features are as old as 17 years.
Thanks for replying.
@omarrx024 looks like they are not that fresh...
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:46 am
by Roman
@omarrx024 looks like they are not that fresh...
And you still have no support for them
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:52 am
by Roman
Hey hey hey, BIOS is still widely used standard and it is too early to think about UEFI.
That's not true. Most modern boards support UEFI, it is definitely not "too early to think". Haven't you proclaimed you'll be striving to make your OS "as futuristic as possible"?
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:07 am
by Octacone
Roman wrote:Hey hey hey, BIOS is still widely used standard and it is too early to think about UEFI.
That's not true. Most modern boards support UEFI, it is definitely not "too early to think". Haven't you proclaimed you'll be striving to make your OS "as futuristic as possible"?
I don't have any UEFI compatible hardware.
UEFI seems much more complex than BIOS.
I use BIOS by the way.
Roman wrote:@omarrx024 looks like they are not that fresh...
And you still have no support for them
-->"Still" is the word of choice. I can't just open my editor and start coding something, I need to make a solid framework first.
Guys, please get on topic in here. This is not "What does your compatibility look like?" thread.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:46 am
by matt11235
octacone wrote:I don't have any UEFI compatible hardware.
You can use QEMU with Tianocore to test out UEFI.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:58 pm
by Roman
UEFI seems much more complex than BIOS.
What do you mean by "complex"? Of course, a modern technology is built more complicated rather than one from the 70s. However, complex doesn't mean difficult to use. UEFI is a boot loader developer's treasure box. It provides a standardized way to do almost everything a loader may ever need: from text, serial and graphical output to storage I/O and networking.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:15 pm
by BrightLight
octacone wrote:Guys, please get on topic in here. This is not "What does your compatibility look like?" thread.
This is actually an excellent idea. There should be a thread called "What is your OS hardware support?" where we discuss the hardware we support, and can help others writing drivers for devices we have experience with.
I, personally, can discuss the VGA, APICs, ATA, PCI(e), and that's pretty much all that's worth discussing.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:40 pm
by Octacone
omarrx024 wrote:octacone wrote:Guys, please get on topic in here. This is not "What does your compatibility look like?" thread.
This is actually an excellent idea. There should be a thread called "What is your OS hardware support?" where we discuss the hardware we support, and can help others writing drivers for devices we have experience with.
I, personally, can discuss the VGA, APICs, ATA, PCI(e), and that's pretty much all that's worth discussing.
Lol, there would be some gigantic battle like discussions.
Let's not get off-topic so here is one screenshot of Basic OS running @ 1920x1080x32. Fixed drawing at the moment, just for the showcase no dynamics.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:53 pm
by narke
I enhanced the display of colorForth blocks.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:50 pm
by Octacone
narke wrote:I enhanced the display of colorForth blocks.
Is that something memory related? Blocks or RAM?
Interesting color scheme.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:10 pm
by narke
These are code instructions, packed to 32-bits, loaded in RAM as initrd. It's colorForth.
Re: What does your OS look like? (Screen Shots..)
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:27 am
by BrightLight
Exception handlers look like this. I still need to implement task termination, so that when the fault originated in userspace and not in kernel-space, I just terminate the faulting process instead of halting the system.