16 bit... again..
Re: 16 bit... again..
ik my past os's werent great. id like to prove myself and correct my statment saying i was building only a 32 bit os. im starting to think coming out with something i think is good, isnt going to be enough.
Re: 16 bit... again..
Just to throw something constructive in here, if you're going to be doing both 16-bit and 32-bit,
why not make a challenge for yourself? Pull an OS/2 and give yourself source compatibility both
ways, and binary compatibility 16->32. That way, if you're really worried about disappointing
anyone, you can at least tell yourself, "Hey, this is unique in OSDev, and if it's not working out,
no wonder." For me, at least, it'd be interesting to see an x86-centric OS in here that had some
kind of 286 support.
As an afterthought, if you're careful about your conventions, you can even
have the same 8086 program run happily in real mode, 16-bit pmode, and 32-bit pmode, just like
OS/2 family mode programs.
why not make a challenge for yourself? Pull an OS/2 and give yourself source compatibility both
ways, and binary compatibility 16->32. That way, if you're really worried about disappointing
anyone, you can at least tell yourself, "Hey, this is unique in OSDev, and if it's not working out,
no wonder." For me, at least, it'd be interesting to see an x86-centric OS in here that had some
kind of 286 support.
As an afterthought, if you're careful about your conventions, you can evenhave the same 8086 program run happily in real mode, 16-bit pmode, and 32-bit pmode, just like
OS/2 family mode programs.
Re: 16 bit... again..
i thought about that months ago, last time i developed an os and had it go into nothing from formatting the HD. ill run an os in 16 bit, then set everything up for 32 bit temporarily to run the 32 bit program, but all in good time. i thin my idea is aka a dos memory extender?