New Subsystem Ideas

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Q
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:43 pm

Post by Q » Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:10 pm

GvG wrote:
The prioritary subsystems for me are:
1- Linux/Unix
I'm always a bit surprised by this. Isn't there already a fine OSS solution to run Linux programs called "Linux"?
I'm always a bit surprised by this. Why run two OS'es instead of one?

ea
Developer
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:54 am
Location: Italy, EU

Post by ea » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:36 am

Q-collective wrote:
GvG wrote:
The prioritary subsystems for me are:
1- Linux/Unix
I'm always a bit surprised by this. Isn't there already a fine OSS solution to run Linux programs called "Linux"?
I'm always a bit surprised by this. Why run two OS'es instead of one?
This is a common misunderstanding. Windows NT (NT,2k,XP,2k3) is not a single operating system. It is two. On the bare metal, NT runs. On NT, Windows (Win32 environment subsystem) runs.

The same applies to ReactOS. It has a compatible NT core, totally rewritten from scratch, and a Win32 "environment subsystem". What GvG says is he would like to see a Linux/Unix "environment subsystem".

alb2550
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:10 pm

Post by alb2550 » Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:17 pm

What about bridging the gap which has plagued computing since the early 80's?

I'm talking about a Macintosh Subsystem.
If a macintosh subsystem was written that stupid arguement about which platform is better would be over.
That and the fact that I want to see MacOs and/or A/UX running on my pc :)

HUMA2000
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:06 pm
Location: España, al sur con el solecito
Contact:

Post by HUMA2000 » Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:45 pm

alb2550 wrote:What about bridging the gap which has plagued computing since the early 80's?

I'm talking about a Macintosh Subsystem.
If a macintosh subsystem was written that stupid arguement about which platform is better would be over.
That and the fact that I want to see MacOs and/or A/UX running on my pc :)
But for do that ROS needs to emulate the powerpc arquitecture (like qemu does) so meybe it will be too slow...

Elledan
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Elledan » Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:14 pm

HUMA2000 wrote:
alb2550 wrote:What about bridging the gap which has plagued computing since the early 80's?

I'm talking about a Macintosh Subsystem.
If a macintosh subsystem was written that stupid arguement about which platform is better would be over.
That and the fact that I want to see MacOs and/or A/UX running on my pc :)
But for do that ROS needs to emulate the powerpc arquitecture (like qemu does) so meybe it will be too slow...
It'll most definitely be slow :)

For one thing, x86 is a register-starved architecture, whereas PPC isn't (we're talking about an 8:1 difference, if I remember correctly), due to this, x86 has to keep swapping stuff in and out of registers while it's processing data (of course, in modern x86 CPUs this means register renaming, because internally these CPUs have much in common with PPC). This, and other factors makes emulating PPC on x86 a very slow process, whereas the other way around can reach nearly native speed.

frik85
Developer
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Austria, Europe
Contact:

Post by frik85 » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:27 pm

HUMA2000 wrote:
alb2550 wrote:What about bridging the gap which has plagued computing since the early 80's?

I'm talking about a Macintosh Subsystem.
If a macintosh subsystem was written that stupid arguement about which platform is better would be over.
That and the fact that I want to see MacOs and/or A/UX running on my pc :)
But for do that ROS needs to emulate the powerpc arquitecture (like qemu does) so meybe it will be too slow...
WinNT and Win 2k are also available for PPC and come with an x86 emulation layer. Several win apps are x86 exe file. You also can run PearPC (emulator) in Win32 and run MacOS X inside.

Dr. Fred
Developer
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Dr. Fred » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:30 pm

You also can run PearPC (emulator) in Win32 and run MacOS X inside.
But that's slower than running ReactOs in Bochs.
Where do you want ReactOS to go today ?

frik85
Developer
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Austria, Europe
Contact:

Post by frik85 » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:44 pm

Dr. Fred wrote:
You also can run PearPC (emulator) in Win32 and run MacOS X inside.
But that's slower than running ReactOs in Bochs.
That's not true. I test it on a pentium 4 2.4 GHz and it works and run as quick as reactos (0.3) in vmware on the same pc.

Dr. Fred
Developer
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:09 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Post by Dr. Fred » Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:13 pm

I've heard that from someone who tried it. Maybe it has improved a lot since then.
Where do you want ReactOS to go today ?

HUMA2000
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:06 pm
Location: España, al sur con el solecito
Contact:

Post by HUMA2000 » Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:32 pm

Dr. Fred: PearPC speed is very good sa far sa it isd emulating a whole machine, the macos x image i've on it is usable, not as far as vmware with another x86 OS, but usable

alb2550
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:10 pm

Post by alb2550 » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:59 pm

I never said anything about PowerPC Architecture :x
If any of you took notice of the reference to "A/UX" you would know that I was talking about the pre-powerpc mac.

BTW: a/ux is apple's unix for the mac, which means that MacOS X is not the first OS on the mac to be unix based.

HUMA2000
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:06 pm
Location: España, al sur con el solecito
Contact:

Post by HUMA2000 » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:27 pm

alb2550: Apple always used a diferent arquitecture for his pc, if not powerpc, will be risc. they never used the x86 arquitecture

uniQ
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:58 am

Post by uniQ » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:16 pm

No, but 68K may be easier to emulate then PPC. However I don't know of subsystem = platform for the purposes of ROSs eventual support, which may make this discussion moot.

-Q
Coming on, coming up, let me help ROS and I'll be able to look @ a life well used.

Pythagoras1
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 5:08 pm
Location: Vienna (Wien)

Post by Pythagoras1 » Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:07 am

to come back to the initial question

1) win16
2) .net (mono)
3) dos
4) java
5) os/2


exactly in this order

HUMA2000
Posts: 235
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:06 pm
Location: España, al sur con el solecito
Contact:

Post by HUMA2000 » Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:29 am

win16 is a low priority for me, i prefer the posix subsystem, i use almost noe 16bit app, but anyway, any subsistem will be welcome :wink:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Google [Bot] and 28 guests