The Place to Start for Operating System Developers
http://f.osdev.org/
You wouldn't want me to hold you to that would you? I would guess that it is probably around 50,000 lines of assembly code you're talking about.Tyler wrote: I reckon any of the long term OS Developers here could do that in only a few months.
Well i wrote a compatable to MS-DOS four in four months, so assuming MS-DOS 1.00 contains less features, i'll happily take up your challenge next time i win the lottery and can quit my job in order to work on it full time for a few months.mathematician wrote:You wouldn't want me to hold you to that would you? I would guess that it is probably around 50,000 lines of assembly code you're talking about.Tyler wrote: I reckon any of the long term OS Developers here could do that in only a few months.
...mathematician wrote:But MS-DOS was 100% assembly. I doubt whether there were any compilers around when version 1 was written.
Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs. I know where the C language come from. Prior to the days of ANSI C it was difficult to read anything about C without repeatedly tripping over the intials K&R; I just assumed that you would have been able to insert the words "for the x86" yourself.Brynet-Inc wrote:Are you kidding mathematician? No C compilers when MS-DOS 1 was written?
How may lines of assembly language did that run to? The shell alone cost me 20,000; admittedly it improved slightly upon the default option. Hopefully you will have included code to locate the InDOS byte, otherwise you would have had my TSR's crashing all over the place.Tyler wrote:Well i wrote a compatable to MS-DOS four in four months, so assuming MS-DOS 1.00 contains less features, i'll happily take up your challenge next time i win the lottery and can quit my job in order to work on it full time for a few months.mathematician wrote:You wouldn't want me to hold you to that would you? I would guess that it is probably around 50,000 lines of assembly code you're talking about.Tyler wrote: I reckon any of the long term OS Developers here could do that in only a few months.
I'm not sure I understand any of that. As for x86 compilers being around in the late 70's, it must have been the very late seventies, because the first in the x86 family of chips wasn't released until 1979. Microsoft began life, it is true, as a small company turning out stand alone Basic interpreters for the early micro-computers, which at that time were still very much toys.Tyler wrote:Unfortunately for the Compiler argument; you stated neither that the compiler was C or x86... Making you 30 years out, but if you had mentioned that you meant 8086 compiler you would have been around 12 years out, and had you sepcifically said C (maybe you did actually but nevermind) you would have only been 3-5 years out as ones existed in the late 70's as Microsoft BASIC (the first real x86 program) became less useful.
Apologies when i say x86 there imeant 8080... though i do know those compilrs where moved almost immediately to the 8086/8088mathematician wrote:I'm not sure I understand any of that. As for x86 compilers being around in the late 70's, it must have been the very late seventies, because the first in the x86 family of chips wasn't released until 1979. Microsoft began life, it is true, as a small company turning out stand alone Basic interpreters for the early micro-computers, which at that time were still very much toys.Tyler wrote:Unfortunately for the Compiler argument; you stated neither that the compiler was C or x86... Making you 30 years out, but if you had mentioned that you meant 8086 compiler you would have been around 12 years out, and had you sepcifically said C (maybe you did actually but nevermind) you would have only been 3-5 years out as ones existed in the late 70's as Microsoft BASIC (the first real x86 program) became less useful.
at least for me