Gx Os

[gan gar]

i am making the GX OS.
i have seen an OS made in turing before so i am going for it if any one wants to help post here.

[Tony]

gan gar @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:51 am wrote:

i have seen an OS made in turing before

Do you even know what an OS is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

[gan gar]

yes i do

[Tony]

So what do you suppose an OS is/does?

[gan gar]

an os is a software program that runs all you hardware and software.

[DemonWasp]

...and they're also impossible to write in Turing. What you're likely thinking of is referred to as a "launcher", which asks the operating system (probably Windows, given as you're writing in Turing) to launch some application.

You have not seen an OS written in Turing, unless someone out there has a very very special Turing compiler they haven't yet shared with the world (exceedingly unlikely).

[gan gar]

he was some turing god that went to my school i do not no how he did but i would like to try.

[Tony]

As DemonWasp points out, Turing is compiled into an application meant to run on top of an existing Operating System. To write an OS, you would need to compile down to machine code, with no reliance onto any OS libraries or APIs, which is not something that the existing Turing compiler can do.

One would then need to load the system into memory on computer startup -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_sequence

[gan gar]

ok then so you think a virtual os would work then were it runs off windiws or mac.

[mirhagk]

unless you plan to put years of effort into this, and know a lot about compilers I wouldn't suggest doing this. I'm working on creating a new turing compiler right now and it's intensely hard. But if you really want your question answered the answer would be windows becuase it's easier to do machine code for (mac has a more complex system) and besides turing doesn't run on a mac.

[Tony]

mirhagk @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:30 am wrote:

it's easier to do machine code for [windows] (mac has a more complex system)

How is it different, if they run on the same x86 architecture?

[apomb]

I am getting alot of enjoyment reading through this thread. I especially like the "advice" given by mirhagk.

I also support Tony's post and like what it implies.

keep it up!

[Zren]

Are you talking about something like a parady OS?
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/292756

[andrew.]

Okay, so bottom line:
- It's pretty much impossible to write an actual operating system in Turing. It is possible to create a launcher which has it's own GUI and looks like a desktop with Turing.
- You also cannot make a "virtual OS" which can be run in Windows or Mac because it is pretty much the same as creating a real OS unless by "virtual" you mean to create a launcher/GUI desktop thing like I said above.
- Recent Macs and "PCs" have the same x86 architecture, so they can pretty much run the same machine code.

[DtY]

(I don't know any assembly but) isn't assembly OS dependant? Like, on windows to print to standard out you write to some memory address, but on a *nix (like Mac OS) you open a file, and write to it (however that's done in ASM)?
So wouldn't that make assembly on Windows different than Assembly on a Mac?