How to build an operaing system ?

[thetman]

the only one i think i can anser is hte one that deals with dos

IIRC, windows 2000, xp, 2003 and of course longhorn dont use dos as an underlying system

[John Veteran]

BTW, i forgot to tell you that i have winme with winxp , is that a reason for making my autoexec.bat full of lines instead of being empty ?

and if the answer is yes , does it mean that winME needs dos to boot ?

585126315[/snapback]

Are they both installed on the same drive? ME doesn't run on DOS, and autoexec.bat isn't necessarilly a sign that DOS is installed on your machine...

[Hosiah]

I'm sorry, I've never written an operating system, so I can't help you much.

Somehow, I get the impression that you have not been clued to a key fact about operating systems: they are difficult. You don't just sit down and write one in an afternoon. Remember, Bill Gates is a billionaire, just because people would rather buy his product that pretended to be an operating system, instead of writing their own.

That being said, the next best thing would be to look at the code for an existing operating system. Companies like Microsoft have lots of lawyers to stop your doing that, so your only choice is to look at the code for a non-proprietary operating system. I know of a great free one, which is Linux. Linux has been written in literally dozens of different versions, most of them have the open source right there for you to look at, and you can download one for yourself here: http://www.linuxiso.org/.

Good luck! And if you get as rich as Bill Gates, remember us old friends back here at Neowin, will you?

[wehttam]

Are they both installed on the same drive? ME doesn't run on DOS, and autoexec.bat isn't necessarilly a sign that DOS is installed on your machine...

585129123[/snapback]

sorry to be an ass in the matter but youll find that windows ME is actually running on top of the win9x kernel which infact runs ontop of dos! all microsodft did was inhibit the ability to access realmode dos in windows ME the link below shows how to enable the option to access realmode dos, even though micorosft inhibits the use of realmode dos it does not remove the fact that windows me is based on the 9x kernel and in fact runs upon dos.

http://www.geocities.com/mfd4life_2000/

sorry to be an ass it just bugs me when people have been missinformed

[Elagizy]

i have setuped windows XP on drive H and windows ME on D .

[Elagizy]

I'm sorry, I've never written an operating system, so I can't help you much.

Somehow, I get the impression that you have not been clued to a key fact about operating systems: they are difficult. You don't just sit down and write one in an afternoon. Remember, Bill Gates is a billionaire, just because people would rather buy his product that pretended to be an operating system, instead of writing their own.

That being said, the next best thing would be to look at the code for an existing operating system. Companies like Microsoft have lots of lawyers to stop your doing that, so your only choice is to look at the code for a non-proprietary operating system. I know of a great free one, which is Linux. Linux has been written in literally dozens of different versions, most of them have the open source right there for you to look at, and you can download one for yourself here: http://www.linuxiso.org/.

Good luck! And if you get as rich as Bill Gates, remember us old friends back here at Neowin, will you?

585129262[/snapback]

if we let microsoft to do everything that will be shame on us, do you know why .. cause microsoft want to be the best to control us ( make us pay what it wants ) , when windows xp came in egypt (just released) , its price was 3500 L.E. also office 4000 L.E. ( now did you c , you are going to buy it even it is very expensive )

also can anybody tell me how linux is released, and microsoft didn't do anything with it's "LAWYERS" ?

[John Veteran]

sorry to be an ass in the matter but youll find that windows ME is actually running on top of the win9x kernel which infact runs ontop of dos! all microsodft did was inhibit the ability to access realmode dos in windows ME the link below shows how to enable the option to access realmode dos, even though micorosft inhibits the use of realmode dos it does not remove the fact that windows me is based on the 9x kernel and in fact runs upon dos.

http://www.geocities.com/mfd4life_2000/

sorry to be an ass it just bugs me when people have been missinformed

585130562[/snapback]

The 9x kernel does not run in real mode DOS as it is far too slow and restrictive. Windows 9x (actually starting with Windows 3.0) runs in 386 enhanced mode, and the CPU is switched to 32 bit protected mode. DOS isn't a 32 bit OS; once win.com starts and switches the CPU, it takes over.

Grab any A+ technician's book and it will tell you this. Microsoft says ME doesn't run on DOS, the A+ exam says ME doesn't run on DOS, and my intellect says ME doesn't run on DOS. I find it very hard to believe otherwise.

[wehttam]

i know dos isnt a 32bit os, but it does lie beneath windows me just as it did with windows 98, a clean install on a newly dformatted drive and the hack mentioned above shows that it is there, i dont care what the manuals say, hell i have the cisco it essentials 1&2 qualifications myself and i know what the book says, its just that little hack shows that the option for real mode dos was just covered over, it is still there much the same as it is in windows 98 just less prominent and covered over.

just to make it clear ... i was only trying to point out that while windows me appears on the serface a new os it was basically builds onward from win98se not a new line of operating system and most deffinatly not nt based, wasnt directed all at you, was just saying that the real dos mode is still availabale, its just covered over, that dos is still there and functional with a winme install as it is with a windows 98 install.

[davemania]

if we let microsoft to do everything that will be shame on us, do you know why .. cause microsoft want to be the best to control us ( make us pay what it wants ) , when windows xp came in egypt (just released) , its price was 3500 L.E. also office 4000 L.E. ( now did you c , you are going to buy it even it is very expensive )

also can anybody tell me how linux is released, and microsoft didn't do anything with it's "LAWYERS" ?

585132380[/snapback]

Linux has nothing to do with WindowOS, it was started by Linus Torvalds as his uni project which was based on Unix OS.

If you want to learn to how to program an OS, you have to learn the basic OS concepts, such as Memory (VM etc), file system, I/O, Concurrency control etc. If you're really serious about this, I suggest you get

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/013...6222672-4032058

[wehttam]

it was created whilst in uni as a hobby NOT as a uni project! http://www.linux.org/info/index.html

[Japlabot]

These Questions are so incoherant that I can barely give an answer to the questions, but good job to GameGuy for understanding them!

[Elagizy]

BTW, about the programs and games compitability with Microsoft OS or Linux OS, i think most of users try to love linux but the problem is most of released programs don't support Linux OS and so they leave this wonderful OS, i don't know why Linux developers don't upgrade Linux to support all software which need microsoft OS , ( like windows XP , when you click on exe file then choose compatibility with 95,98,ME... etc) , if that happen i will use linux immediatly cause i see that OS is more stable and faster .... i hve tried linux red hat and mandrake ....

also i want to know how i could do this feature if i did an OS , i mean to know the logic or the enigne of how to make my OS supports programs which need EX: Microsoft OS ?

[KayMan2K]

You seem to have an extremly naive view of operating systems and lack any understanding of economies in general. I hope you are learning a lot from this thread and suggest reading books on both OS (in which many of your questions will be answered) and on business (learn why Windows isn't free and Linux not popular in the mainstream).

also can anybody tell me how linux is released, and microsoft didn't do anything with it's "LAWYERS" ?

585132380[/snapback]

Linux releases are available for download from many many websites and some retail stores have copies on CD available. There are hundreds of different 'distributions', each uses the same Linux operating system but customizes the install package to include different applications. I do not understand why are you asking about Microsoft's lawyers in regard to a different company releasing software. Linux is a competing operating system, but is legal (forgetting about the SCO nonsense).

Windows XP is expensive because it has taken years of development and cost more than $2 billion to produce it. Microsoft does not intend on indivdual consumers purchasing full versions, they make their money mostly from selling to other businesses (which have a lot of money to spend) and licensing to pc manufacturers. If you're computer does not come with WinXP (which all do today) then you can purchase a $100 upgrade. Which is a very reasonable price.

Microsoft is creating a new version of Windows XP (called starter edition) for other countries who cannot afford the regularly priced version. MS is also lowering the price of WinXP in many countries where consumers/businesses cannot possibly afford the higher prices solution. It is also available at a severly reduced discount to univerisites and students.

Microsoft is not controlling you. If you do not wish to purchase their products, then don't. You can use Linux or Solaris for free or purchase a Mac computer (which are more expensive). Some will argue that those systems and their office products are not as good as Microsoft's. It is *NOT* MS's fault that competing products are not satisfactory to you.

--- Operating Systems ---

I do not mean to offend you, but based on the level of questions you are asking it does not seem possible that you are going to be able to write your own OS. There are many many aspects to consider.

As for making an operating system 100% comptabile with Windows is a lot of work. The reason why Windows is so large is because they cannot remove the old files and features to assure that older programs will still work with the newer versions. But to make any program written for Windows to work in Linux you need to rewrite the entire Windows API (system calls) and there are already a few open source projects working on this with little success. You also have to consider that some programs rely on the NTFS file system and millions of other qwerks Windows has. Such as the file size of DLLs, the way Windows occupies memory and Window's scheduling system. Linux users that wish to run Windows programs use virtual machine software to run Windows on-top of Linux. This is the only method to assure complete comptability. Compiled Linux and Windows can also run a variety of processors, which is another problem. Even though you are running the same operating system they may be running on different processor architetures.

Windows XP is programmed in about 70% C and 30% assembly language. You can see for yourself how Linux is programmed, its source code is freely available.

i think most of users try to love linux but the problem is most of released programs don't support Linux OS and so they leave this wonderful OS

Biased? Yes, programs written for Windows cannot directly run on Linux. Several projects and companies have attempted to create 'comptability modes' as you have suggest with limited success. It is a very complex task. You are also wrongfully asuming everyone wants to use Linux... I for one do not. It is a cool operating system but not everyone would enjoy using it. Windows is very easy to use, designed for the average user, and has a smooth user interface... Linux is not as easy to use and is not standardized but fully customizable. There are many different window environments users can run which are not necessarily compatible with each other.

Edited December 20, 2004 by KayMan2K

[jamend]

Well KayMan2K, I'm also going to have to correct you on something =)

There are already viable methods of running Windows programs in Linux. Wine and Cadega (an offspring of Wine) are the major methods and they do it pretty well. They also don't use a virtual machine or emulation, instead they have an (almost) complete implementation of the Windows subsystem that allows Windows programs to run with their native compilation. To give an example of how well it works, Cedage now supports Half-Life 2 (and obviously it runs at an acceptable speed to make it playable). That's not something that can be achieved through emulation. On a side note, there are also similar ways of running Linux/UNIX applications on Windows, such as cygwin, mingw32, and Microsoft's very own Windows Services for UNIX.

[Elagizy]

You seem to have an extremly naive view of operating systems and lack any understanding of economies in general.  I hope you are learning a lot from this thread and suggest reading books on both OS (in which many of your questions will be answered) and on business (learn why Windows isn't free and Linux not popular in the mainstream).

585134304[/snapback]

and so i opened that thread to learn more about OSs but not about economics ( um in the faculty of commerce , also i have tested my first commercial product of "RoboMatic X1" ver 1.0.0.0 with success ), i think you misunderstand the post which you get form it the quote , i was replying to other person about "Lawyers" as he said .... etc

I do not mean to offend you, but based on the level of questions you are asking it does not seem possible that you are going to be able to write your own OS.  There are many many aspects to consider.

585134304[/snapback]

You are free to say what ever you want, thats your opinion and about making my OS i'm really serious , and to prove that .... i will prepare my self to learn the essentials to build OS in that holiday from the links which posted in that thread ....

also id like to show you my work ......

I started the project "RoboMatic X1" since 2001 it is not like as any AI chatbots, it can also control your computer and make a different jobs for you ( and so i called it "RoboMatic X1 Operating System Assistant" )

that software was programmed completly using VB, here is my screen shots of the next version (1.5) but its still beta ...

I opened that thread cause i want RoboMatic X1 as a system ;)

that screen shot will be as Windows XP "welcome screen" :D

http://www.infradrive.com/adv/beta_1.5_1.jpg

that screen shot will be as the main interface of my OS

http://www.infradrive.com/adv/beta_1.5_2.jpg

and that will gonna be the help of my OS

http://www.infradrive.com/adv/beta_1.5_3.jpg

thats the media player of my OS ( under construction , i will remove WMP dll anyway )

http://www.infradrive.com/adv/beta_1.5_4.jpg

and that will be the control panel of my OS :D

http://www.infradrive.com/adv/beta_1.5_5.jpg

that's a book of our small experience in programming RoboMatic X1

http://www.infradrive.com/adv/beta_1.5_6.jpg

that will be history or you can call it a "chat log" as messenger plus :D

http://www.infradrive.com/adv/beta_1.5_7.jpg

all of that is already made but in VB.Net and my crew is ready to spend another 3 years to convert this project to an OS ....

i really thanks every one give me his experience, and i'm ready to put his name in the credits ( i want to put in special thanks "Neowin.net Members" , if you don't mind moderators ;) )

Don't you all want to be like Microsoft , Linux Developers !!!

[kjordan2001]

Interesting app, although I don't really like the look. It's too cluttered and has too many colors going on. How's that going to turn into an operating system though?

And why would Linux dev's want to be like Microsoft? They work on Linux because they like to, not because they want a profit. It's something people work on in their free time.

[Elagizy]

And why would Linux dev's want to be like Microsoft?  They work on Linux because they like to, not because they want a profit.  It's something people work on in their free time.

585135702[/snapback]

yes u right , and so am i ..... but i was just thinking as "some" people think from that way

[kjordan2001]

yes u right , and so am i ..... but i was just thinking as "some" people think from that way

585135724[/snapback]

Not really. Linux is an operating system where anyone can add to it. It's not closed source like Windows where it's driven by commercial apps.

[kjordan2001]

Also, it would be incredibly difficult to go from a VB app to a complete operating system. Have you though about how you're going to get the GUI actually up? Are you going to use X11 and build up on that? Not to mention how you're going to do everything prior to a GUI?

I too have an interest in operating systems, and was going to read up on some books for it over my winter break, and perhaps start on something resembling an operating system over the summer.

[Hosiah]

BTW, about the programs and games compitability with Microsoft OS or Linux OS, i think most of users try to love linux but the problem is most of released programs don't support Linux OS and so they leave this wonderful OS, i don't know why Linux developers don't upgrade Linux to support all software which need microsoft OS , ( like windows XP , when you click on  exe file then choose compatibility with 95,98,ME... etc) , if that happen i will use linux immediatly cause i see that OS is more stable and faster .... i hve tried linux red hat and mandrake ....

Uh, well, you see....Linux is written, as others have pointed out, by volunteers, hobbyists, and a handful of drone-like individuals who commit to it full time because they believe in it so fiercely. And the very difficulty you cite is evidence of just how good these people are.

Consider: Say if you were a games designer. You want people to buy your game, so you want the most people to be able to run it. So, you design it mainly for the platform that the most people have. And through a series of historical accidents, that OS that most people run is Windows. These software developers code for Windows first, and then maybe "fringe markets" like Macintosh if they think of it. Hardware developers, manufacturing printers, scanners, etc., do likewise: they write their drivers for Windows, maybe Macintosh!

You mention that you're in it to learn programming, not economics...and I'm with you on that! IF ONLY we could keep the economics out of it! But we have to live with it. So, a professional software company, say they spent $50,000 to develop a game to run on Windows, and they expect to sell $5,000,000. worth to Windows users. Now, to port it to Linux, they have to pay those programmers another $50,000. to produce that, and then only, maybe, 100 people might buy it? Or, they can just move on to the next game, which they can sell again to Windows users.

Linux can still run many of the same programs, but Linux developers have to either do it on a simulater (like Wine) or "hack" a driver for the hardware as best they can...for those who aren't rich enough to do nothing but code Linux all day, this means they do it in between shifts at full-time jobs, classes at school, whatever.

Have you heard of the singing frog? It cannot sing well, but the miracle is that it can sing at all! <--an old joke to illustrate the point.

Now, think about the future. The home "micro" computer has only been a common appliance in most homes since the 1980's. A whole generation is just now living in the prime of their buying years, whom have "grown up on computers". Given another generation, and it's only logical that people will be more clued-in to computers, and it's highly unlikely that they will continue to pay outrageous prices for something they can get higher quality for free (or very little money, as there's no law against selling Linux). The bigger Linux market would cause more software developers to take notice of these "fringe markets", which may not be so much on the fringe for very much longer. Also, if I were selling commercial software, I would see more money to be made from the cutomer who got their OS for free, and has more money to spend on my fancy doo-dads, rather than the customer who's spending all they can spare on the OS itself.

The point to all this rambling is to be patient with Linux, as it's at the forefront of a revolution. And for that matter, be patient with the world's computer users, most of whom are still uncomfortable touching a keyboard, and to whom computers are still new, intimidating pieces of equipment.

Incidentally, today, (just for the exercise! this isn't for release!) I just wrote a simulation of Conway's game of Life on my Linux, that uses the "curses" library which I'm currently learning. Have you played with cullular automata, yet? Automata, fractal generaters, games of Go, Serpinski triangles and sponges, Sim City games...these are fascinating to watch and play with, and as you watch them, you learn things that apply to economics (AND computer evolution), that you didn't know it was possible to learn!

Anyway, I hope you're still encouraged. I admire your spirit! And look how far you've come already! I bet nobody in Egypt thought of writing an operating system 20 years ago...

[azcodemonkey]

Instead of building a complete OS, why don't you start small and build a shell for Windows. What you see when you're using XP to load apps and browse the file system is the Explorer shell. You could get your shell to look exactly as the screens you posted with less effort. Writing a full-blown OS just isn't feasible, especially since you seem to want Windows compatibility.

Never the less, check out OS News' website and forum. There are some knowledgeable people and info on projects that you could use as a guide. Also, look for books on operating system architecture, the ones by Tanenbaum.

[kairon]

This thread is hilarious.I think someone who fails to comprehend Windows is just a tad overambitious to make an OS. Assembly language is what you need to know to program the beginnings of an OS. You need to learn about interrupts, registers, things like "mov" and "jmp", and how to handle lots of other things that seem to be too complex for you to be able to do.

[Dr.Jones]

Give up, already !

[KayMan2K]

Well KayMan2K, I'm also going to have to correct you on something =)

I am fully aware of Wine (didn't know about the other project) and the general method of simulating Windows API calls to have the program run natively. I thought I had acknowledged this in my post, sorry if I had left it out. This method is exciting and making great progress, but it is limited. It cannot run every program that Windows XP can run. A lot of programs for Windows are poorly written and some even rely on the errors and problems with Windows. The only current way to fully reproduce the environment is to be using a virtual machine. So, I wasn't saying that it is not possible to run Windows programs natively in Linux... just that it is very very very hard to write software which can run ALL programs on Linux.

Thank you for pointing out that the reverse is true for running Linux programs on Windows. It is easier to port Linux system calls and X11 to Windows than vice versa becuase it is an open source project.

and so i opened that thread to learn more about OSs but not about economics ( um in the faculty of commerce , also i have tested my first commercial product of "RoboMatic X1" ver 1.0.0.0 with success ), i think you misunderstand the post which you get form it the quote , i was replying to other person about "Lawyers" as he said .... etc

Quite possible, I think I misunderstood the Laywers reference.

Thank your for sharing the details of your project and the reason why you are interested in developing an OS. Your best bet is too purchase a book about operating systems and another on X86 assembly language and read it cover to cover. If you are seriously interested in learning more about operating systems.

Also, I believe you are grossly underestimating how long it will take and how much work is needed to write an interactive graphical OS. It will take you more than three years.... be prepared.

You are free to say what ever you want, thats your opinion and about making my OS i'm really serious , and to prove that .... i will prepare my self to learn the essentials to build OS in that holiday from the links which posted in that thread ....

Again, thank you for sharing the details of your project. I am not doubting your commitment to the project. But you will need to spend several years (not just a holiday) learning the essentials to build an OS (based on your current knowledge of computers).

The VB program you wrote is cool, but you would need to write your OS in assembly language C. Both are very different and much more difficult languages than VB. You need to write keyboard handlers, memory management, video drivers, process schedulers, process synchronization, the network stack at every level (do you even know all of the levels of networking?).... basically you need to understand how a computer works at the very basic hardware level. You will not be able to use command like "Form.Show" but rather write the thousands of lines of code behind that simple command.

Operating systems are developed by thousands of people over many many years. You will probably not reach the level of sophistication you need in an OS to port your application.

Well, I think at this point it has been beaten to death that this is too much work for you and your friends.. even over a three year period. But at a more fundamental question... why make this its own OS? As suggested, just make this a shell for either Windows or Linux. I am trying to understand what possible benefit you see to making this into an OS. Other than fun and personal learning experience.. there is no benefit.

[davemania]

This thread is hilarious.I think someone who fails to comprehend Windows is just a tad overambitious to make an OS. Assembly language is what you need to know to program the beginnings of an OS. You need to learn about interrupts, registers, things like "mov" and "jmp", and how to handle lots of other things that seem to be too complex for you to be able to do.

585136329[/snapback]

Uhhh, I've never seen an OS hand coded in assembly unless it was in a embedded system

[kjordan2001]

Uhhh, I've never seen an OS hand coded in assembly unless it was in a embedded system

585138223[/snapback]

Well, there's going to be at least some part of a system that will be in assembly.