Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Apr 2012 20:28 UTC
BeOS & Derivatives "During the coding period, I will first work on the boot loader. I intend to modify the existing x86 boot loader so that it is capable of loading both a 32-bit Haiku kernel and a 64-bit one. Once this is done, I will work on implementing the x86_64 architecture functionality in the kernel. Finally, I will port modules and drivers to the 64-bit kernel. Should I have time, I will also begin work on porting userland." Heck. Yes.
Thread beginning with comment 516274
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
fast or slow
by the old rang on Mon 30th Apr 2012 03:30 UTC
the old rang
Member since:
2009-09-04

For many years, Microsoft turned all computers made and shipped for windows, into16 bit slow deamons (This included XP... I could care less to know if anything after that, continued the insanity) All it took, to make most windows systems faster was a simple line of boot code, specifying a 32 bit system. Yes the default was to process as a 386/486. (after the line of code was used, all 16 bit channels that could, became 32 bit, and communication to disks, ram, and within the processor, doubled in band width, so to speak.)

Strange to see that the desire for 64 bit is not comprehended. That would make data channels faster, too... not just the processor (or, that was the case with windows). Also, with 'more speed' and 'more power'... Tim Taylor is happier.

I tried the live-CD of Haiku. Even from CD, it was fast (especially using that as a handicapper).

But, it seems, display drivers (and a few other drivers, etc,) would mean more acceptance... a bit more polish on the GUI, would also help.

I am sure, the systems will be fast, with Haiku. But, unlike 'Steam Punk' and its looks, Haiku seems to be a grainy, kludgey display/interface that has no sentimental value.

I was able to work out how things got done, but, I was not impressed with the interface. I use Ubuntu, and am not at all amused by dis-Unity (ergo, I am using 10.04).

I found that BeOS's grandchild, so to speak, is still amazing in speed... but, it seemed to have been cleaner back then.

Reply Score: 1

RE: fast or slow
by einr on Mon 30th Apr 2012 09:20 in reply to "fast or slow"
einr Member since:
2012-02-15

All it took, to make most windows systems faster was a simple line of boot code, specifying a 32 bit system. Yes the default was to process as a 386/486.

This makes no sense. The 386 and 486 were both fully 32-bit processors.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: fast or slow
by Andre on Mon 30th Apr 2012 10:08 in reply to "RE: fast or slow"
Andre Member since:
2005-07-06

Every x86 processor, including the latest x86_64 bit (unless you have a legacy free machine, but most computers still have a BIOS (or BIOS emulation))
initialise in real mode. The oldest 16 bit mode, in wich they run like the ancient 8086/8088.

I think the speed difference being referred to is related to communicating with the hardware directly in stead of using BIOS calls (which happened in real mode)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: fast or slow
by JLF65 on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:52 in reply to "RE: fast or slow"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

The primary difference between Pentiums and newer vs 486 and older was the introduction of Virtual Interrupts. That simplified and sped up the interrupt handling for user mode code, making a significant difference in speed and coding for "enhanced" mode software on the x86. Intel would later work Virtual Ints into certain models of the 486 for people who wished the feature without needing to update the entire computer.

When you see software that runs on a Pentium/586 or better, and not on older hardware, that's usually the hardware that's being relied on that prevents it from being used on the older CPUs. Particularly with OSes, which need to handle both user and kernel modes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: fast or slow
by v_bobok on Wed 2nd May 2012 00:47 in reply to "fast or slow"
v_bobok Member since:
2008-08-01

There's nothing wrong with the UI. Think of it like "classic" mode on modern Windows or good ol' Metacity in Gnome 2 without all the bells and whistles. Personally I don't mind Haiku UI now, it's small, cute and pleasing enough for me.

Reply Parent Score: 1