OSDev.org

Posted: **Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:33 pm**

DevC++(Win) or Kate(Fedora) and GCC/Min-GW. NASM or FASM depending on the application.

Posted: **Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:41 am**

Favourite: Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 (better then 2005 :/)
Then Eclipse.

Posted: **Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:31 am**

"Generic Programming".

But I second your statement. "Going self-hosted" is probably the most important milestone in developing an OS. The day you can bootstrap your OS, i.e. build all tools required to build your OS on your OS (and afterwards, rebuild your OS with those tools), you have left the "development" department and have entered the realm of "real operating system", because now you are no longer depending on anything else.

Posted: **Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:42 am**

Thanks solar, its good to know we both agree on what a OS dev should aim for

.

Posted: **Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:04 am**

Solar wrote:"Generic Programming".

But I second your statement. "Going self-hosted" is probably the most important milestone in developing an OS. The day you can bootstrap your OS, i.e. build all tools required to build your OS on your OS (and afterwards, rebuild your OS with those tools), you have left the "development" department and have entered the realm of "real operating system", because now you are no longer depending on anything else.

Dex wrote:Thanks solar, its good to know we both agree on what a OS dev should aim for .

Who doesn't want that..

I Think it's totally awesome when the tools you use to compile your OS, compile on your OS

Posted: **Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:23 pm**

Legend wrote:Favourite: Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 (better then 2005 :/)
Then Eclipse.

Have you tried Installing VS6.0 on Vista yet? I got error after error. I ended up giving up working out the exact dependencies and i compiled all the stuff i wanted to test on it on a seperate computer. They have done themselves no great sevice in there support for old MS programs.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:01 am**

VS6.0 is what I consider a "broken" compiler. It violates the language standards in so many places it isn't funny anymore...

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:59 am**

Solar wrote:VS6.0 is what I consider a "broken" compiler. It violates the language standards in so many places it isn't funny anymore...

Shakes Solar's hand..

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:02 pm**

Solar wrote:VS6.0 is what I consider a "broken" compiler. It violates the language standards in so many places it isn't funny anymore...

And yet despite its "inadequecies", enough people choose to buy it over using the "good" free compilers that microsoft stay in business... Must be all that damn witchcraft they use i'm sure.

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:28 pm**

Tyler wrote:
Solar wrote:VS6.0 is what I consider a "broken" compiler. It violates the language standards in so many places it isn't funny anymore...
And yet despite its "inadequecies", enough people choose to buy it over using the "good" free compilers that microsoft stay in business... Must be all that damn witchcraft they use i'm sure.

Are people still buying VS6.0? It's almost nine years old!

I agree with Solar (and coincidentally with Brynet, although I'm sure for different reasons). VS.NET 2003 comes with a much better C++ compiler (I haven't tried VS2005 yet).

Posted: **Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:48 pm**

Colonel Kernel wrote:
Tyler wrote:
Solar wrote:VS6.0 is what I consider a "broken" compiler. It violates the language standards in so many places it isn't funny anymore...
And yet despite its "inadequecies", enough people choose to buy it over using the "good" free compilers that microsoft stay in business... Must be all that damn witchcraft they use i'm sure.
Are people still buying VS6.0? It's almost nine years old! I agree with Solar (and coincidentally with Brynet, although I'm sure for different reasons). VS.NET 2003 comes with a much better C++ compiler (I haven't tried VS2005 yet).

I was actually shocked to find out it is still purchased and requested by MSDN Subscribers... they are going to have a riot on there hands when they completely stop support for it. Personally i stick with the GNU but when running windows ive always liked the simplicites of VS

Posted: **Sun Dec 10, 2006 5:55 pm**

Text Editor: Wordpad $\:D/$ Notepad for when I want to read line numbers. But I'm thinking of moving over to Tedpad.

Compilers: DJGPP gcc package

Assembler: Nasm

Linker: DJGPP binutils package

Build-tool: Cmd! (through the use of a batch file)

Built-OS: Windows Vista

Emulator: QEMU

I do most of the coding on my tablet.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:34 am**

MessiahAndrw wrote:Text Editor: Wordpad

Congrats. There I was thinking that using notepad is crazy.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:26 am**

Solar wrote:
MessiahAndrw wrote:Text Editor: Wordpad
Congrats. There I was thinking that using notepad is crazy.

Notepad does have its advantages, such as line numbers when wordwrap is disabled. Actually, I'm not sure why I'm even using wordpad over notepad.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:11 am**

Notepad does have its advantages, such as line numbers when wordwrap is disabled. Actually, I'm not sure why I'm even using wordpad over notepad. Confused

I remember reading a programming introduction somewhere that said to pick a text editor you were comfortable using. If using Microsoft Word, remember to save as a text document.

Anyone done any OS deving in Word? lol..

Has not pad improve from what came with windows 95? I remember it had a limit on how big the text file was? Is that an issue still?

Andrew

OSDev.org

what IDE and compiler do you use?