[A83] Re: Ms-dos (OT)
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: Ms-dos (OT)
At 19:32 2001-03-04, you wrote:
>Hmm, DOS means Disk Operating System, so it's made to operate disks. (fixed
>disks (aka harddrives), removable disks (aka floppy, CD-ROM, DVD, Zip,
>Jazz) and RAM-disks (and *of coarse* network-drives))
>MICROS~1 *made* MS-DOS for the 80x86-family of processors (actualy the
>bought QDOS [Quick & Dirty Operating System] from a little company, when
>they didn't made it to do it themselves in time -for IBM-). But there are
>many DOSes around even for the Z80, like -indeed- the CP/M, but also the
>Z88.
>
>So a "100% IBM-compatible system" isn't needed to run a DOS. The question
>is, should we need one for the TI-83+ SE?
Heh, you can't put equalsigns all over the place like that just based on
part of the name.
Kindof like saying that MS Windows and X-Windows is the same thing, just
because they both have "windows" in the name and (among other things)
handles graphical squares on the screen....
And we where talking about MS-DOS, and not just any os that handles disks.
I said MS-DOS needed a ibm pc compatible machine, nothing more, nothing less.
MS-DOS only exists for x86. CP/M exists for z80 yes, (and for x86, and
probably some more)
>My answer would be that it would be nice to have some better file routines,
>so you can actualy "open"a file and read/write "that many" bytes from/to
>it. And the OS would do the actual file-handling. It would then be a LOT
>easier to make file-handling routines for a C compiler. I'm quite far with
>them now (Ti-83), but no, it's not "easy"...
Seems a bit overkill to implement a whole os just for that.
Does the read and write and open routines really get that big that it is
motivated to implement a new OS?
If one should write any new OS for the calc, I would say the biggest reason
would be that it is a fun thing to do, not that it is really usefull...
Isn't full fledged open and read and write a bit of a waste of space on a
calc anyway, since it actually isn't on disk, but in ram (or flash), and
doesn't have to be moved to a buffer in ram to be read, like it has to when
you have it on a disk? You can just read it in place.
///Olle
References: