OSDev.org

I have decided to use Grub to load my kernel, but I don't know how to use it to load my kernel. I am using Bochs and I can get Grub working correctly. Then I should load my kernel, but I don't know how to. Do I have to create somekind of a disk image? I have tried to use Google, but I find only turorials and help for Linux and I am using Windows 98. Could someone explain what should I do or give to me a link to tutorial which teachs what I should do?

ever tried "BareBones" and "Working With Disk Images" from the FAQ ?

http://www.osdev.org/osfaq2/

I have already read that FAQ but I hoped that someone could explain a little bit more. That FAQ don't give much information about Grub and Bochs working together (or I just didn't find it). I would be grateful if someone could explain something. Link to webpage about that thing is OK too.

well, afaik, you'll need
- an image of an "empty" GRUB floppy (should be one on the FAQ: "disk images under windows")
- tools to write files (say, kernel.bin) into a floppy image (VFD should do the trick)
- then give that image file to bochs and it should be happy

Thanks Pype.Clicker, but I vfd probably won't work in my computer. It seems to require at least Windows 2000 or NT. I have Windows 98 SE. Does anyone know another program that would work under Windows 98?

Depending on your system, I'd highly recommed upgrading to at least Windows 2000, it's much better than 98SE. If you use 98 games a lot then XP maybe better, but their both much more stable than 98. If your system is up to it of course.

srg

srg wrote: Depending on your system, I'd highly recommed upgrading to at least Windows 2000, it's much better than 98SE. If you use 98 games a lot then XP maybe better, but their both much more stable than 98. If your system is up to it of course.

Well, I'm not so sure 2000 is more stable than 98. I thought that 98 was better. But I would trade any of those OS's for a XP. Or better yet.. I'd take Linux. ;D

Anything is better than Win 9x.

I agree that Windows 2000 is a LOT more stable than Windows 98 (SE or not). Windows 2000 is generally pretty stable as long as your display drivers are decent.

Windows 98 is generally not pretty stable even when ALL the code in the system is decent. If you have ANY misbehaving or malicious software in a Windows98 box, then it'll hardly do anything but crash. And the real trouble is, there isn't a single programmer in this world that writes perfect code always, so generally you can't do programming on Windows 98 and stay sane.

To bring us back on topic: http://bochs.sourceforge.net/doc/docboo ... image.html
This a selection of tools for manipulating disk images on Windows.

To continue on the off topic: Win9x is heavily derived from both Win3.1 and DOS underneath it, it is prone to almost random crashes and poor performance because of all the 16bit subsystems. WinNT and its derivatives (2000, XP, 2003, XP64) are proper ("proper" is used very loosely) 32bit/64bit OS' and are therefore more stable and will generally be faster as well. [Personally since I started messing with OS Development and learning all this about Windows I feel insulted for ever having paid for this piece of crap to start with, shatter attacks are my favourite flaw I learned recently, escalate any user to Local System via the messenging system (design flaw, MS can't fix it)]

Thanks for AR. Now I got it working.

I know that Win98 is awful operating system and I would use Linux if I could. I usually have to boot my computer at least once in day and the booting process takes long time. Programs don't work properly and often comes some kind of error when I am using them. It isn't fun.