Object orientated O/S

[Jay]

Can ther be an efficient OO O/S, with something like Apple is doing with Mac OS/X

[K.J.]

Can ther be an efficient OO O/S

There can be. I'm not sure exactly what you mean though.

K.J.

[Jay]

What I'am trying to say is for example I use Windows 2000,
and as you probably know it takes up abbout 1.2G with service pack 2 installed. Would OO O/S be any smaller, I mean an efficient OO O/S isn't just about speed, what about the usage of space on the harddrive.

[K.J.]

The usage of the hard drive(1.2GB for Win2k) doesn't have much at all to do with whether a kernel is OO or not. The reason that Win2k takes up so much space is mainly because of 2 things:

1. All the little extra programs that Win2k comes with

2. The tight integration between Win2k and Internet Explorer

K.J.

[Jay]

I know that windows 2000 isn't object orientated, but with all of the bells and whistles that people expect in an O/S will an OO O/S be any smaller.

[K.J.]

Really, it just depends how you make an OS. Now I'm not sure, but I'd say that an OO OS wouldn't be any different than a non OO OS in use of disk space and resources(unless the overall design of the OS isn't made with OOP in mind).

K.J.

[DTShadowWolf]

Yeah, I've been working on some Object Oriented Operating System stuff.  Mainly the reason why Windows is so large is because it has a very large database of STUFF.  Most drivers you need are stored in the windows directory, but aren't linked properly so you have to reinstall it every time.

An efficiency of an OS is related to design vs. purpose vs. idea, or what I call the efficiveness ratio.  An operating system designed for Object Oriented who's purpose is to give a text-based OS is very ineffective.  But an Object Oriented windows-esque environment would be more effective than many others.

Pick what you wish.

Figure out what everyone else is going and go the opposite way.