I have had some thoughts about the OS that should come with the new MSX. In my opinion, the people that are going to develop the new OS should think very hard. A good OS is the perfect base for further software development, the total opposite of M$ Windows.



How about a OS kernel based upon Linux technology? The interface should not be like the linux command line, simply because it's too complicated for the ordinary user.



(oh, a C compiler should be shipped with the thing as well, when it comes)

Incidently, Nishi also suggested using Linux as OS Linux running Intent that is.



Then, it can be programmed on 3 different levels. High-level (intent), medium-level (Linux), low-level (direct hardware access). Regardless of the language being used. It should be very exciting!

The programmers should not be able to access the hardware. Accessing hardware simultaniously by different programs results in the usual crash, most of the time. Low level programming like we used to do with ASM is not an option for multi tasking OS.



I remember some dude saying that he could actually instruct the CPU under Windows. What a lame joke. If it could be, then software would be faster, but less reliable.



we should be programming the OS instead the CPU and let the OS instruct the CPU alone.



But hey, it needs an interface as well. Am absolutely not looking forward to find myself staring at the MSX BASIC prompt when booting the new MSX without floppy (?!)



nishi is right, linux is thee sollution.

I was not talking about low-level programming while running linux.

For a computer that is based on the principles on MSX, it should indeed be possible to access all hardware directly, using ASM (or C/PASCAL with inline ASM). If this means the program only works outside of the Linux multitasking environment, so be it...

What's the point of a new MSX if it runs under Linux ??? I mean really, just get a second hand PC/Atari/Amiga/Mac, install Linux on it and there you go... What would be the added value of yet another machine that runs Linux ?



Linux is also the total opposite of a user friendly system. It's perfect as a server but it's FAR from having what it takes to satisfy regular users and it will never be a mass market product, even Linus Torvald admits it.



The point of having a common base of hardware (which is the case of the MSX standard) is to allow to access directly hardware and get the most out of it, en ensure compatibility between



I don't deny the advantages of an architechture with middle layer but to me it mostly applies to PC where nothing is standard. And this is really the opposite of the MSX spirit.

I was more thinking of an OS based on Linux that can run Linux software as well. Or, like Intent, an OS on an OS. Both is possible

Linux is indeed far from user friendly. At least, when using the command line. Using the graphical windows look-a-like shells improve it! Use KDE on linux and the dumb users can also have fun with it.



But hey, im not supporting linux on MSX at all! It more like a NEWer multitasking OS based on the advantages that linux has. Ripping pieces of code is no problem at all because it's opensource.



But multitasking AND hardware programming is just not a good idea. every programmer should know that very well.



Well maggoo, what would u like to see? The MSX BASIC prompt again? Nah, that's ancient and won't succeed IMO.

Linux or linux-based doesn't nessecarily mean it's not user-friendly. Windows adds a high level of automation to its kernel, Linux could do the same. Only now efforts towards that are really starting, take a look at Lindows and such.



As for the rest, the 'new MSX' is also targeted to the more 'advanced' user, they want to include a programming language like Basic with it after all, don't they?



About an OS for MSX, I have some nice ideas for an OS which I like to refer to as DOS3 ^_^. It's not particularly based on an existing kernel or anything, just a custom design with great flexibility which could turn out very cool ^_^. Anyways the project is at the moment halted for a bit in favour of more interesting development. But I'll continue working on it after that.





~Grauw

Well it doesn't HAVE to be multitasking all the time. Look at Amiga, there was a very good multitasking system, however, for games/demos, etc... It was possible to take over the entire system and access hardware directly...



3D Multitasking Basic prompt would be cool indeed

well, combining multi tasking with hardware programming could be nice indeed! I think it would make emulating MSX a lot easier.



Switching modes is possible! But no, i would not prefer to program BASIC, again

Quote:

Well it doesn't HAVE to be multitasking all the time. Look at Amiga, there was a very good multitasking system, however, for games/demos, etc... It was possible to take over the entire system and access hardware directly... 3D Multitasking Basic prompt would be cool indeed

Well, let's hope a possible multitasking MSXOS (hey, has a nice ring just like that ) will be MUCH more stable than AmigaOS...



(sorry, old habits never die )

One of the less user-friendly things about Linux is its installation procedure, finding drivers etc etc... This problem would not plague the new MSX, because it's standardized and thus doesn't need to support 1000 different kinds graphics hardware, 50 different network interfaces, etc etc...



Besides, you won't run Linux most of the time, you will run Intent/Elate.

Multitasking? Linux? Horreur! I want a new MSX, not another PC!!



If you ask me about a new MSX, I think it should be like the old ones, but with faster processor and linear memory (Z380?), and some of the already existing peripherals built-in (say gfx9000, moonsound, IDE, SCSI). Oh, and a few MB RAM by defualt would be nice too.



And if you ask me about a new OS, I think it should be DOS 2 plus some addendum: more accurate memory management (say NestorMan), proper TSR capability (say MemMan), and the possibility to tie drive letters to given device drivers and file system drivers (say FAT16 and CD ROM extensions, user created RAM disk...)



Yeah, a little too conservative maybe, but it its just that I love MSX as it is, and I just miss the capabilities I have mentioned. But I understand that there is no way for a such computer to be a commercial success nowadays.



And by the way, I agree that we really need a real C compiler, not the 1985 museum items we have now.



Peace and obsolescence.

are you really against a multi tasking OS nestor? very hard for me to believe that. But hey, i seems that you are also aware that your options are very hard to have a commercial succes.