OSDev.org

Amerigo wrote: The advantage? Transistors are limited to binary (Yes or No) Something more complex might give a computer more options in it's processing.
I too foresee huge problems to begin with, but that's the nature of progress. The biggest problem is in the programmers' fear of stepping beyond the bounds of binary...
binary = a two dimensional plane in a four dimensional world...

If transistors were so bad and it was really so easy to get off binary, don't you think it would have been done by now?

Digital circuits function because at their core, they respond to voltage. Due to electrical noise, there has to be margins that get recognized, such as 0-2.2V is logic 0 and 3.4-5V is logic 1. To add more states, you would have to add more transistors, which slows down the circuit, defeating the point.

If binary is really so bad, you can use a layer of abstraction on top of it to do what you need.

I've got a deal for you, I'll go read Asimov's books if you read a programming as well a computer engineering book.

Also, please don't insult the intelligence of the members on here; Just because they can't solve your very broad problems for free doesn't mean they're not geniuses.

The ideal operating system should be separated into a smaller but meaningful peaces, every peace does its work. Even the kernel should not be a one program that control the low-level. Separation gives the ability if something goes wrong, one module to be restarted without crushing the whole system. Talking about restarting, all specification says that most of the exceptions restart fault instruction. Well, unless the handler is so smart that could fix the mistake, reexecuting will make another exception. I don't know when LCARS will be available, but talking about the future, the software start inventing the neural networks, with ability of minimal A.I. (minimal, since the A.I. should make choices, choices are made due to effectivity and if two or more choices are "quite good" then truely random should be chosen (not pseudo-random)).

Amerigo wrote:Yes, of course, it would take more than one. The human brain has billions! So would a computer.

Actually the computers seems to do million operation in second, working with numbers far beyond 0 and 1.The computer is enough good (not perfect, still a lot to fix, but for now enough) to represent the A.I. Actually talking about binary - the DNA is formed by nitrogen bases which are four type (compared to computer bits which are two types - 0 and 1, but you can actually gat two computer bits for one DNA, they seems to be compatible since are divisible by 2) and one gene has three bases, so compared to one computer byte gives 3^4=64 possibilities, the computer gives 2^8=256 possibilities. If compare you biosystems to the computer ones - most times the cardiovascular system, digestive system, breathing system and secretory system are used to give your body energy, just like the power supply of PC. If you do not eat and your internal supplies over, the brain shuts down once for all. In computer if power down, you can turn on PC again. So computers are now enough good.
The only thing they miss is the inaccurate "thinking" of human brain, which actually seems to be better than perfectly accurate milliard operations per second.

PLEASE NO AI! No seriously, I want my computer to be a unintelligent instruction follower. A SLAVE TO MY COMMANDS! Lol. I just don't like AI in an operating system. Also, voice recognition? Honestly, that should be an application not a part of the system itself.

mzaiady wrote:Example of thinking in correct way instead of write builtin antivirus into your OS, it will be more efficient to find some way to
run the programs (any software) in isolation (one of the key success of the Java virtual machines (JVM) security).

Essentially that's what ring 3 (on Intel archs) are for. Even Java applications can still delete all of your files, add programs to start up automatically, etc. When a program is in ring 3 you have full control over what it can/can't do to touch the system and other processes. The difference is that Sun decided to be more restrictive on what programs can do than the Windows team allowed. This is neither a good or bad thing, as it can get difficult to design a very secure system (it's easy enough to stop a process from accessing the file system or touch another process's memory) while keeping it flexible enough (some programs, e.g. antivirus, drivers, servers need to access other program's memory, and you need to tell the goodies from the badies - without having to confirm if every single driver and server is allowed to start on every boot up!)

mzaiady wrote:you need to read and learn more

Yet another one of the hundreds of others who have posted here telling us to learn more without knowing what they're on about. Yes, I know about neural networks (I wrote an evolving creature breeding program using neural networks and genetic algoriths), and I know about quantum computers. Though I have had experience in NN I don't claim to be an expert on the subject.

mzaiady wrote:and with AI application [quantum computing] will be ideal.

Isn't that what they said about the Lisp machine?