OSDev.org

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2003 6:09 am**

What about AssOS?
@$$ stands for Assembler

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:22 am**

Perica Senjak wrote: The First thing i want to do is think of a name for my Operating System! Yes, i know that the name is not Important, but i just want to think of a name now, and get it over-and-done with.

You're a bit like me

I also needed a name... since it is a bit annoying to never have a name to refer too when talking about the OS... but because I really couldn't make up one I thought I should have a developement name under the developement... maybe something for you too?

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2003 9:33 am**

Perica Senjak wrote: I have also transferred my Operating System to Pure-Assembler (yes yes, i know that you people think it's a bad idea -- But there were too many reasons weighing over C/C++

First of all, I agree with you. I code in Assembler too... It is low level and has a nice syntax. I really don't like the C/C++-syntax...

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2003 10:35 am**

I don't think you'll get far using only assembler

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2003 10:48 am**

Why not use your name - it has a pretty good ring to it

Senjak OS

Initials Maybe:
PS or PSOS or
PASOS (PericaAssemblerSenjakOperatingSystem)
I kind of like that one

Or use part of your name:

Add the IX like unix
senjix
jakix
perix
That is the method I used

Use your imagination
Good Luck

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:42 pm**

I thought of the things I want the OS to embody, and looked up the Latin word for it...I got Viridis (green, vibrant and youthful) because it's a new OS and my first try.

Since it's assembler, you might want to try small, fast, cryptic

or any of the other things you want your OS to embody...

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:46 pm**

abless wrote: I don't think you'll get far using only assembler

Wasn't the first version of DOS written in pure assembler in someone's basement in just a couple weeks. Why would you think it cannot be done? There are many OSs out there done in pure asm. I think even most of Win95 was ASM wasn't it? I heard something along those lines many moons ago anyway.

_mark()

Mark

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:24 pm**

abless wrote: I don't think you'll get far using only assembler

That's just absurd. Assembler is a programming language as all others. But more powerful.

Posted: **Mon Mar 03, 2003 5:26 pm**

wangpeng wrote: I thought of the things I want the OS to embody, and looked up the Latin word for it...I got Viridis (green, vibrant and youthful) because it's a new OS and my first try.

I myself have thought about that. But I haven't figured a good word out translate that don't sound weird once translated...

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:51 am**

gonna christen your os? *ggg*

Perica, may be you can call your os KoalaOS? *bg*

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:20 am**

Latin is good, my OS is called Valeo, from the latin dictionary:

valeo : valui : valiturus : to be strong, have power, be well.

Daryl.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2003 4:47 am**

Wasn't the first version of DOS written in pure assembler in someone's basement in just a couple weeks. Why would you think it cannot be done?

BEEP - I didn't say it couldn't be done, of course it can.

That's just absurd. Assembler is a programming language as all others. But more powerful.

Actually, assembler is a low-level machine language - C, Pascal & Co. are high-level programming languages.
Anyway, I think you got me wrong. Of course you can program a OS in assembler - but I don't think you'll succeed. It's *really* ugly to write a total Operating System in assembler, it's a d*amn work. It's much more effective to use higher levle programming languages like C.
That's what I think, and many others do. You're going to be frustrated

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2003 7:02 am**

abless wrote:
Actually, assembler is a low-level machine language - C, Pascal & Co. are high-level programming languages.
Anyway, I think you got me wrong. Of course you can program a OS in assembler - but I don't think you'll succeed. It's *really* ugly to write a total Operating System in assembler, it's a d*amn work. It's much more effective to use higher levle programming languages like C.
That's what I think, and many others do. You're going to be frustrated
It may not more efficient to use a high-level language. The code size may shrink alot by using low-level. And speed can also be boosted by doing so. It may take a lot of more time but it will still be more efficient.

And I get frustrated whenever I try to program so I can live with that. One thing more, I feel comfortable with the Assembly-syntax and cannot stand C. So I program better in Assembly than in C.

Posted: **Tue Mar 04, 2003 8:31 am**

_mark() wrote:Wasn't the first version of DOS written in pure assembler in someone's basement in just a couple weeks.

Yes, but by today's standards, DOS is virtually nothing. It's just a FAT file system driver, a device interface and a set of helper routines.

OSDev.org

Thinking of a name for an Operating System...

Thinking of a name for an Operating System...

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....

Re:Thinking of a name for an Operating System.....