Porting ReactOS to different Hardware...

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Would you like to run ReactOS on another platform then i386, and in that case what platform?

Power Mac (RISC)
7
10%
Motorola 68k familly (Mac, Amiga, Atari ST)
3
4%
Comqaq DEC Alpha
1
1%
PocketPC/ WindowsCE hardware
8
12%
Other 32bit
4
6%
Other 16bit
0
No votes
Other 8bit
0
No votes
Intel 64bit
4
6%
AMD 64bit
39
57%
Transmeta Native
3
4%
 
Total votes: 69

roytam
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Mac/PPC

Post by roytam » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:42 am

Arion wrote:
avryhof wrote:Moreover, there was a version of Windows NT for the PPC, so if ROS is going to clone NT, might as well go all the way.
Was there? I thought that WinNT only ran on x86 and Alpha. I never heard of it running on PPC without an emulator.
There's a screenshot of NT4 PPC version:
Image

Jaix
Moderator Team
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Sweden, Växjö

WOW: Mac/PPC

Post by Jaix » Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:31 am

Wow, cool, I didn't remember this version, I only remembered the Alpha port, but when I think about it there were a third port beside i386 and alpha. I just have to check my old NT4 install disks. This has a great cool-factor indeed.

daniele_dll
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by daniele_dll » Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:54 am

but there is a big problem...softwares :\
porting the entire so will be wonderful, but after? do you will play reactos backgammon using reactos on a ppc? i think that to do a port is necessary too much time so why to do a port? is more useful work on the core.
The unique, useful, port, i think, that should be amd64 and itanium, but only because these can run x86 instructions.

Have only reactos ported on other platforms is unuseful, is necessary to port some applications and societies will do not port their software to an sparc or mips platform to run it on reactos :\ Many societies don't know react os so they will do not port any software to other platform to run it with reactos.

I think that is more necessary to do a more stable and resistent software before to start to think to port it :\

this is what i think :)

Jaix
Moderator Team
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Sweden, Växjö

Why port at all?

Post by Jaix » Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:32 pm

daniele_dll wrote:
I think that is more necessary to do a more stable and resistent software before to start to think to port it :\

this is what i think Smile
Of course it is much more important to get the native i386 ReactOS to work, but I don't think it will stop there. Like Linux ReactOS has an enourmous potential to be an operating system that we will see in many applications from tosters to mainframes in the future, I think it's a question about when not if.
Why not an intelligent settop box with DVD-burning and network access with ReactOS GUI?
We will have unlimited options.

daniele_dll
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Why port at all?

Post by daniele_dll » Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:39 pm

Jaix wrote:daniele_dll wrote:
I think that is more necessary to do a more stable and resistent software before to start to think to port it :\

this is what i think Smile
Of course it is much more important to get the native i386 ReactOS to work, but I don't think it will stop there. Like Linux ReactOS has an enourmous potential to be an operating system that we will see in many applications from tosters to mainframes in the future, I think it's a question about when not if.
Why not an intelligent settop box with DVD-burning and network access with ReactOS GUI?
We will have unlimited options.
yes, it's true, but a linux subsystem (an elf loader) can be done using cygwin or, for example, a software like this
http://zlog.thebrainroom.net/index.php? ... ndows.html

:)

Baldomero
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:42 pm
Location: Spain - Valencia

Post by Baldomero » Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:02 pm

I think, that the goal of this software is run on x86 plataforms.

I think this project has to make all of its efforts on make a stable and solid base OS. After that, I'm sure everybody will make it's distros, but for sure, that ReactOS will be the base of all them.

And as this will happen, once stable, somebody will port it to X and Y, as it is open source.

The problem is that at the stage ReactOS is, all efforts should go in the direction of a stable x86 WinNT compatible OS. After this goal is made, somebody will do ports, and distros, and embedded mods, and ReactOS for old computers, and ..., but the main team, I'm sure, will work on the official ReactOS, the base ot ALL mods,distros,etc.

This is my opinion.

But of course, Porting supported by the official ReactOS is a need, but after a stable version appears, not before.

avryhof
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:56 am
Location: Brewerton, NY
Contact:

Post by avryhof » Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:55 pm

The problem is that at the stage ReactOS is, all efforts should go in the direction of a stable x86 WinNT compatible OS. After this goal is made, somebody will do ports, and distros, and embedded mods, and ReactOS for old computers, and ..., but the main team, I'm sure, will work on the official ReactOS, the base ot ALL mods,distros,etc.

This is my opinion.

But of course, Porting supported by the official ReactOS is a need, but after a stable version appears, not before.
That is true, but being cross-platform needs to start at the beginning. Having ROS on different architectures might already just be a dream. The reason is, when you write an OS, it should have thngs left so they can be easily recompiled on other platforms. Processor-specific code needs to be eliminated, and any optimizations should be pulled off to functions that can easily be optimized for other CPUs. It's easier to make it compatible from the get-go than to go back and rewrite almost everything to port a "finished" product.

Baldomero
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:42 pm
Location: Spain - Valencia

Post by Baldomero » Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:10 am

Yes, that's true. I hope developer team can grow enough for all this, if we want some speed developement and portability at the same time.

bastetfurry
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:20 am
Location: Deep Umbra ;)
Contact:

Post by bastetfurry » Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:54 am

Soemone in here said something about emulation of code.
What if ReactOS gets a feature that it has some kind of SubSystem that could emulate foregin CPUs transparently to the system.
That would mean, if i compile ReactOS for my 68020 driven Amiga1200HD i could easily just doubleclick on my x86 app and it would run happyli.
Just make sure that the non x86 Apps arnt called .exe or havent MZ at the beginning, or have a platform descriptor in their resources.

BTW: What does that MZ mean, after all?

So Long, The Werelion!
--
Wir sind kein Mensch und keine Katze.
Wir sind wer wir sind.
Wir sind die Kinder des Zwielichtes.
Wir sind Bastet.

daniele_dll
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:42 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by daniele_dll » Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:06 am

bastetfurry wrote:Soemone in here said something about emulation of code.
What if ReactOS gets a feature that it has some kind of SubSystem that could emulate foregin CPUs transparently to the system.
That would mean, if i compile ReactOS for my 68020 driven Amiga1200HD i could easily just doubleclick on my x86 app and it would run happyli.
Just make sure that the non x86 Apps arnt called .exe or havent MZ at the beginning, or have a platform descriptor in their resources.

BTW: What does that MZ mean, after all?

So Long, The Werelion!
this is foolish for a simple reason...do a so big work for something that will not be really used! If you set ap your amiga and start an x86 app that is emulated (like darwine work using jit) this app will go veryyyy slowly and will be not usable :)))

It's a great thing, but isin't really usable in a production environment :)

MZ is a magic header code used in PE file format (Portable Executables)
read this :) can be a veryt useful introduction http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content ... .html?Ad=1&

counting_pine
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Fallowfield

Re: Why port at all?

Post by counting_pine » Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:43 am

Jaix wrote:Like Linux ReactOS has an enourmous potential to be an operating system that we will see in many applications from tosters to mainframes in the future
ReactOS is being created to be a Windows-compatible operating system. Unlike Linux, it comes with a GUI and a whole bunch of DLLs that you might need sometime.
It wouldn't be nearly as easy to port to another architecture, and I don't think it's worth the effort. Using ReactOS on anything other than a personal computer is probably sticking a lot of extra features and demands where they're not needed.

bastetfurry
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:20 am
Location: Deep Umbra ;)
Contact:

Re: Why port at all?

Post by bastetfurry » Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:55 am

counting_pine wrote: ReactOS is being created to be a Windows-compatible operating system. Unlike Linux, it comes with a GUI and a whole bunch of DLLs that you might need sometime.
It wouldn't be nearly as easy to port to another architecture, and I don't think it's worth the effort. Using ReactOS on anything other than a personal computer is probably sticking a lot of extra features and demands where they're not needed.
Whats about those intelligent refrigators with that panel in front?
AFAIK they use Windows at the moment, but it would be a great advantage for the builders of those refrigators if they could save the 100 € for a windows licence but use a windows compatible os instead.
--
Wir sind kein Mensch und keine Katze.
Wir sind wer wir sind.
Wir sind die Kinder des Zwielichtes.
Wir sind Bastet.

solemnwarning
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:18 pm
Location: UK

Re: Why port at all?

Post by solemnwarning » Thu Dec 30, 2004 5:16 am

counting_pine wrote:
Jaix wrote:Like Linux ReactOS has an enourmous potential to be an operating system that we will see in many applications from tosters to mainframes in the future
ReactOS is being created to be a Windows-compatible operating system. Unlike Linux, it comes with a GUI and a whole bunch of DLLs that you might need sometime.
It wouldn't be nearly as easy to port to another architecture, and I don't think it's worth the effort. Using ReactOS on anything other than a personal computer is probably sticking a lot of extra features and demands where they're not needed.
Linux Has Had GUI's For Years, When Did U Last Use It??

Wierd
Posts: 147
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:12 am

Post by Wierd » Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:19 am

Actually, depending on the viewpoint, you are both right.

Linux itself doesnt include X. Linux is a kernel; It just so happens that most linux distros come with various versions of BASH, X, and other environments that make the kernel useful.

X, BASH, and other linux "shells" are all independant of Linux, the kernel. "Linux" works just fine without them.

Try ripping GDI out of a WinNT installation sometime and see what happens. ;) You'll find that certain features are actually embedded into the NT kernel, making that task insanely difficult to fully accomplish, and *STILL* keep the system from crashing and burning.

In short, Windows was DESIGNED to have a GUI. Linux was not. X came later. (and IMHO, it shows)

bastetfurry
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:20 am
Location: Deep Umbra ;)
Contact:

Post by bastetfurry » Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:29 am

Wierd_w wrote: In short, Windows was DESIGNED to have a GUI. Linux was not. X came later. (and IMHO, it shows)
This is what i always have said, X under Linux is just a way to big hickhack to be planned for the OS. Everything that OS knows about multimedia has been thaugt(sp?) with a big huge hammer. And in my opinion this is the same for the generic PC hardware ;)
We still have that stupid 64kbyte adress limit with fscking paging and no uniform Adressspace like 680x0 CPUs have.
This can be tollerated for old systems, like the C128, but not for a modern system.
0x8001:0000 can be anything on a x86, but 0x80010000 is 0x80010000 on a 680x0, thats at least what i have learned from trying to learn x86 assembler, and i am not going to touch that ever again as its the most complicated shit i ever heard of. 6502 Asm is fun, this is just.... no word for that...

Ok, with modern compilers you dont have to care about this, but this thing will always follow you in form of mysterious paging errors, waiting for page switches and so on.

But even while writing an OS, you have to care with these things from ancient times. Wouldnt memory management be a lot easier without paging? I would just love it ;)

So Long, The Werelion!
--
Wir sind kein Mensch und keine Katze.
Wir sind wer wir sind.
Wir sind die Kinder des Zwielichtes.
Wir sind Bastet.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests