Source of MS-DOS 1 released


I coded an OS kernel in undergrad, a little under 10 years ago, and it too was in pure x86 assembly, including a few basic shell programs I threw together at the end (can't remember if there was an ls) It's not like I normally programmed everything in assemby, I guess I just thought doing stuff in C meant needing a standard C library ported to the OS. Now I know it wouldn't have been like that, I've developed on a few OS-less platforms using C without any kind of standard library, and it was definitely a lot better than doing things in assembly. At the time it didn't seem that bad though.
 
I remember modula-2 being quite widely taught in universities even into the 90s. I don't think I've ever come across it being used in the wild, whereas I still see little encampments of Fortran doing the rounds.
 
Yes. Fortran and Cobol are like cockroaches. When the civilisation collapses after the third world war, and all humans die slow horrible deaths, the roaches will rule the planet and crawl over ancient mainframes still running inventory control systems in Cobol.
 
My toy OS is primarily written in asm - the bootloader (obviously) then calls the kernel which sets up protected mode and creates various tables for video writes to enable SVGA graphics, and then goes on to call the binary blob that is what you guys know as PandaBAS. Works well on my old 486 DX2 50MHz and is amost instant-booting.

D.
 
My toy OS is primarily written in asm - the bootloader (obviously) then calls the kernel which sets up protected mode and creates various tables for video writes to enable SVGA graphics, and then goes on to call the binary blob that is what you guys know as PandaBAS. Works well on my old 486 DX2 50MHz and is amost instant-booting.

D.
No offense, but what you describe sounds more like a bootloader than an OS.
 
Back
Top