I remember the demo floppy that QNX used to do. It was a 1.4MB disk that booted a full real time OS with GUI, TCP/IP stack and web browser.
(it did cheat by using data compression on the fly though!)
Still, early versions of AmigaDOS ran on a 512KB system with ease (although to be fair they did have 256KB of the OS already in ROM)
Back in the days when "CDs will make software piracy impossible!" ;-)
OS/8 for the PDP-8 used rather less than 4k words (12 bit words). And the resident part, when programs were running, was 128 words! Yet it compiled and ran FORTRAN programs, among others.
I know...I have it running right here (well, downstairs in the workshop).
I've played with windows 1&2, Gates certainly demonstrated persistence and vision with something the rest of us thought not really workable
NT
vision with something the rest of us thought not really workable
Oh windows 2 JUST ABOUT worked. We had a bloke who wanted to do Creative stuff so we got pagemaker 3.0 and windows 2. He wanted a mac...and Quark..
I don't think he ever forgave us for that.
En el artículo , John Rumm escribió:
I've got an image of that somewhere. We still use QNX for real-time control at work.
It hardly required vision - lots of others had proved the concept before (and better). It certainly took persistence though.
It wasn't, until approx Win95 or 98. Meanwhile the Mac had demonstrated the concept just fine for more than dozen years.
Win 2 was the first we had - it did work - just - but was on the limits to the typical machine.
Win 3 was better IIRC.
But Win95 started to actually be usable - was that when they first went native 32 bit?
We started to use NT4 at work at this point, which I found (somewhat to my surprise) to be very useable. No crashes, f'rinstance.
there was always a memory leak in it
It would crash after a few days or weeks.
And Xerox demonstrated the concept before that.
Did either of those fit the multi-tasking and multi-user requirement? I'd assumed that one did one and the other did the other, but not both. I had a RML 380Z that ran MP/M (rather than CP/M), but I don't recall if it had any multi-task ability now. My experience of Concorrunt CP/M is exactly nil :-)
I don't know, they picked a crock OS for a crock hardware platform - it's just a pity that it became popular! :-)
cheers
Jules
It did seem to (or the GUI would lose the plot or something else would fail in an interesting way), but I'm not sure it it was "the OS", or badly-written code added post-install (or even well-written code that interfaced to APIs that perhaps weren't very well thought out).
I liked it more than Win2k / 95 / XP etc. though... which isn't to say that I liked it very much :-) Win 3.11 was perhaps my favourite version, just because it was really just a GUI and didn't *have* to get in the way of getting real work done.
cheers
Jules
MPM was multiuser and concurrent CP/M had a task switcher in it. Used to page in ram as well if you did it right.
I'd
Bit hard to do multiuser without multi-task. Whether it had a pre-emptive scheduler or not I cannot remember.
"MP/M was a fairly advanced operating system for its era, at least on microcomputers. It included a priority-scheduled multitasking kernel (before such a name was used, the kernel was referred to as the nucleus) with memory protection, concurrent input/output and support for spooling and queueing. It also allowed for each user to run multiple programs, and switch between them."
It was the OS. a friend of mine wrote a program that allocated and freed RAM. Two bytes IIRC vanished every time he did so. After a few million iterations the machine locked up. That was the ONLY program running.
Well I had to support them all. Up to 98 at least. Frankly it did get better but the memory footprint doubled with every release as far as I could make out.
I did try disassembling calls into it once. Frightening. One got the impressions of the 100,000 monkeys randomly typing code in and another
100,000 monkeys bodging everything until its just about worked well enough to sell.The best thing about Linux is never having to support Windows ever again.
No, win95 still sat on top of 16 bit DOS. (they tried to hide the join a bit to create the impression that they were an integrated product, to stop people wanting to buy another brand of dos to run win95 on)
There was a layer of cludgery inside Win9x to allow "thunking" i.e. calling one code of one size from code of another word size.
Gates constantly tried to re-write history on that one and claim that he had invented Windows before anyone else thought of the idea of windows, icons, mouse and pointer. He seemed to develop a memory hole about his statements that a GUI would never be appropriate for business when the Mac appeared on the market.
Which is ironic when you consider his reputed response to Jobs when he accused Gates of ripping off Apple by developing windows... Gates is supposed to have said something like "Well Steve, there is more than one way of looking at this, its as if we both had a rich neighbour called Xerox, and I broke in to steel the VCR, only to find you had already stolen it"
Well, this is the myth. In fact Steve had negotiated a look at what Xerox had, in exchange for Apple stock options.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.