Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 27th Feb 2011 12:06 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems This is a situation where I need the help of you OSnews readers who are experienced with low-level development on ARM, SPARC, PowerPC, MIPS, and other hardware architectures we have on computers nowadays. The issue is that I'm currently designing the part of my hobby kernel which takes care of interrupts. Although I mostly work on x86 at the moment, I'd like to keep this code portable to other hardware architectures in the future. To do that, I have to know how interrupt handling works on as much HW architectures as possible.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 40 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 464226
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Apple II
by zimbatm on Sun 27th Feb 2011 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple II"
Member since:

Hehe, I don't know the specifics but remember: it was a 1Mhz CPU, 40k or so of memory.

Take the design of a simpel game: init, then loop over: (read keyboard address, calculate action, render new state). In an old computer the challenge was to fit the game logic in that "calculate action" step so that it would not take too long. It is also the days where the display herz would be in sync with the computer herz and you had a fixed set of instructions you can run until the new image is shown (Amstrad?).
Nowadays, the loop would run thousands of times per second and the keyboard polling is a waste at that speed.

It was also the days where the manufacturer would give you detailed manuals with program examples. I remember the AppleII had all it's chips mounted on sockets and where replaceable.

By the way I wanted to verify my sayings. Didn't find the specifics, but I found this cool AppleII doc archive :*~@...
I like how the design is simple. IMO, the tendency is to forget why a particular was introduced and add another layer of indirection instead of fixing that particular to the new needs. Computer history is the solution :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple II
by Neolander on Sun 27th Feb 2011 22:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Apple II"
Neolander Member since:

Computer history is the solution :-)

Gonna attract some foes by saying this but...

Are you really so nostalgic about CLI ? ;) Moreover, polling-based systems would probably have terrible power consumptions, which in our age would be unacceptable...

It was a smart solution to that time's problems, but it does not mean that it is a smart solution to nowadays' problems, which is what we'd need ;)

Edited 2011-02-27 22:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Apple II
by zimbatm on Sun 27th Feb 2011 22:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Apple II"
zimbatm Member since:

Nah I agree :-) I believe to have acknowledged that polling is not adapted anymore in my previous post, but probably not really clearly. It's just that I think it's good to question past decisions and not always blindly build on top of it. Your approach of building an OS is a testament that you are on the same camp :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1