Parallel OS Advancement
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vainrveenr Nov 29, 2007 8:47 PM EDT |
Perhaps this Linux Loop piece gets right to the main points of OS advancement vis a vis MS+Windows vs the linux kernel together with the abundancy of GNU/Linux distributions. In the MS camp, the simple to complex desktop OS-side of things on advancing HW has more or less proceeded as follows: 12/16bit DOS 16bit Windows 32bit Windows NT 16/32bit Windows 95A 16/32 bit Windows 95 OSR2 16/32 Windows 98 16/32 Windows 98 SE 16/32 Windows ME 32bit Windows 2000 32/64bit Windows XP 32/64bit /Windows Vista The range of hardware for all this is wide; from an 80286 CPU with a MB of RAM and a 10MB hard drive (DOS 3.3) all the way to the cutting edge multi-GHz CPUs of today with multi-GBs of RAM and several hundred GBs of hard drive disk space (for MS-Vista and MS's next 64bit iteration?). One can more finely refine the history lesson here, but the linux kernel and distros based upon this have also similarly evolved. IIRC, Torvalds first 1.x kernels could completely run in CLI-mode on such similar machines as those used for solely for DOS and 16bit Windows. 1st GNU/Linux distros were SLS/Slackware, Debian, another one or two. The author is completely aware of this. Quoting:Although Linux has been around as least as long as Windows, it has managed to avoid the bloat and code confusion that plagues Windows.One of the points of the Linux Loop piece from this, is that the current highest-ended machines set out for Vista can actually better accommodate the more finely hewed and supported GNU/Linux distros based upon the latest 2.6.x kernels. The opposing pulls here are clearly towards (1) GNU/Linux distros that can indeed run on the highest-ended PC's more effectively and more economically than MS-Vista, as opposed to (2) GNU/Linux distros that can still run effectively on as low-end hardware as MS's unsupported/discontinued 16/32bit versions of Windows. Although not even probably considered by the author for this particular Linux Loop piece, there is continued discussion such as here at LXer over which distros are best for that low-end laptop or desktop which used to have Windows 9x on it --- Windows-parallel GNU/Linux distro suggestions here such as Basic Linux, Debian, Slackware, DSL, Puppy, ....... etcetera. |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2007 9:31 PM EDT |
> The range of hardware for all this is wide; from an 80286 CPU with a MB of RAM and a 10MB hard drive (DOS 3.3) Our first DOS machine was an 8086 with 512KB of memory and a 5.25" floppy drive (no hard drive). I believe it ran MSDOS 2.2. |
| vainrveenr Nov 29, 2007 11:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:8086 with 512KB of memory and a 5.25" floppy drive (no hard drive). I believe it ran MSDOS 2.2.Stand corrected then. Also corrected is the entry point of the original linux kernels compared with the prevalent MS software products of the same time period. Direct from the 'History of the Linux kernel ' Wikipedia : Quoting:In 1991, in Helsinki, Linus Torvalds began a project that later became the Linux kernel. It was initially a terminal emulator, which Torvalds used to access the large UNIX servers of the university. He wrote the program specifically for the hardware he was using and independent of an operating system because he wanted to use the functions of his new PC with a 80386 processor. This is still among the standard today, optimally. The operating system he used during development was Minix, and the initial compiler was the GNU C compiler, which is still the main choice for compiling Linux today (although Linux will compile under other compilers, such as the Intel C Compiler).This kernel was something like a precursor to the official 1.x kernel in 1992, and the other MS desktop OS products of this time period were DOS 5.0x using the Windows 3.x GUI's. Also interesting to note is that the first GNU/Linux distributions were being developed with Torvalds' first several linux kernels while IBM was splitting off from MS in their combined 16/32bit OS products. For IBM, these products became OS/2 v2.0 and 3-Warp, whereas for Microsoft, their main 32bit product, of course, eventually became Windows NT for workstations and servers. This 'History of the Linux kernel' quote supports points made in the top comment . Again, (1) Software (Minix, GNU C Compiler) running as effectively as possible for the actual hardware in use. (2) A low-end (80386 CPU), but remaining standard that acts as a foundation for everything following this. |
| jacog Nov 30, 2007 12:55 AM EDT |
Perhaps not entirely on-topic, in the late 80s/early 90s, I learned the value of good software to compliment hardware. I was a rabid Amiga user, and already early in that decade, the demise of it as a popular platform had begun. But, even by 1995/6, I was still amazed at how "fast" my desktop felt on a 14Mhz CPU with 4MB of RAM, compared to the PC I used at work, running Windows 95 on a 200Mhz Pentium with 64MB of RAM. I could cold boot to a usable desktop in under 5 seconds, and the fact that the CPU was only 14Mhz seemed like something of an achievement. Hardware whoring seemed to trump good software though when it came to making purchasing decisions for a lot of people. He who hath the bigger numbers, wins, regardless of how useful the end product was. I don't think this trend has changed. |
| mmelchert Nov 30, 2007 8:23 PM EDT |
> This kernel was something like a precursor to the official 1.x kernel in 1992 Maybe I am reading it wrongly but there was no 1.x kernel in 1992. The 1.0 release was much later. I got on the train with 0.98.4 and the date in the following link seems about right to me: http://ftp.cdut.edu.cn/pub2/linux/kernel/history/Master.html |
| dinotrac Dec 01, 2007 5:49 AM EDT |
>Our first DOS machine was an 8086 with 512KB of memory and a 5.25" floppy drive (no hard drive). I believe it ran MSDOS 2.2. Hmmm. Interesting. I thought that, by the time MSDOS 2.2 rolled around, most machines rolled out with a full 640K. Shows what time will do. BTW -- are sure that was an 8086? My XT clone from 1986 was a reasonably hot non-AT machine for its day, with 20G hard drive, 640k, and hercules graphics, but it ran an 8088, not an 8086. The IBM pcs did the same, though the world of clones ran other chips as well, including the NEC V20. The original pcs cam with an 8-bit bus and 8-bit expansion cards, so the 8088 was a natural fit. I think the reasoning was to be an inviting platform for manufacturers who were making 8-bit devices for CPM machines |
| jezuch Dec 01, 2007 2:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:with 20G hard drive Are you sure it was 'G'? :) |
| dinotrac Dec 01, 2007 6:38 PM EDT |
>Are you sure it was 'G'? :) OOOOPS!!!!!! Actually, yes. It was a special edition of the old Seagate ST-225, the "Back to the Future" version. Only drawback is that it was an MFM drive using the old 8-byte interface, so no more than 20 MB was actually usable. ;0) |
| ColonelPanik Dec 02, 2007 4:45 AM EDT |
¤What happened to GEOS OS? It came on Magnavox computers. Seems it ran on DRDOS. It was winders before winders. |
| jacog Dec 03, 2007 2:56 AM EDT |
Oh gawd yes... I had GEOS on me Commodore 64 also... no hard drive, yoink! |
| techiem2 Dec 03, 2007 10:33 AM EDT |
Didn't the old Zoomer pdas run geos....? I've got one somewhere in the basement... |
| jacog Dec 04, 2007 12:09 AM EDT |
On GEOS. Wow, look at the screenshot... And 1986? I'm getting all nostalgic now and feel like installing a buttload of emulators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8-bit_operating_system) |
| ColonelPanik Dec 04, 2007 6:40 AM EDT |
jacog, Thanks, loved that link. Where have the years gone? |
| jdixon Dec 04, 2007 8:55 AM EDT |
> I thought that, by the time MSDOS 2.2 rolled around, most machines rolled out with a full 640K. Shows what time will do. > BTW -- are sure that was an 8086? This was a Tandy 1000 EX with a memory upgrade. I believe both 512KB and 640KB upgrades were options, but that's from memory. You are correct in that it was an 8088 though, not an 8086. Here's a site with the specs: http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=1213 |
| techiem2 Dec 04, 2007 11:09 AM EDT |
Aha! There it is! http://www.8bit-micro.com/tandy-zoomer-z-pda.htm That's the one I have .... somewhere. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!