Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Nov 2013 00:19 UTC
QNX

This is a quick demonstration of the QNX 1.4 megabyte floppy disk demo.

QNX is an advanced, compact, real-time operating system. This demo disk, released in 1999, fits the operating system, the "Photon MicroGUI", and the HTML 3 capable Voyager Web browser all on a single 1.4 meg disk!

So far no emulator or virtualizer I have tried will run this QNX demo 100%, so this is running on real hardware. The video is captured with a VGA capture device.

QNX is one of the most intriguing operating systems of all time. This demo disk is one of those things that, even today, blows my mind. Be sure to watch through the whole video, especially the part where extensions are downloaded and run from the web, all on a single 1.44 MB floppy.

Thread beginning with comment 576680
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: LOL
by kwan_e on Tue 12th Nov 2013 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: LOL"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

For what it is worth Mach is a 3-decade old project, so obviously it is of little relevance TODAY.


you including them in the list of failed microkernels was a bit uninformed.


I'll just let this little bit of cognitive dissonance sink in, shall I?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: LOL
by tylerdurden on Tue 12th Nov 2013 17:47 in reply to "RE[8]: LOL"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

So basically you think that old == failure. I see what the problem is; your comprehension skills are basically nil. Which would explain things, I guess.

I was simply pointing out that Mach is a very old project, it did its thing, it had a lot of influence in the field, and a bunch of products sprung out of it. You know, the opposite of being a failure. 3 decades in the computing field are an eternity however, and a lot has happened since then.

Do you get it now, or do I have to write more slowly?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: LOL
by Megol on Wed 13th Nov 2013 12:10 in reply to "RE[9]: LOL"
Megol Member since:
2011-04-11

So basically you think that old == failure. I see what the problem is; your comprehension skills are basically nil. Which would explain things, I guess.


No it is a failure as it isn't used - and for good reasons. The overheads of MACH meant that anyone using it had to have much better hardware than the competition.
It's also a failure in that it retarded the micro-kernel research for a long time as many people thought microkernel = MACH level performance.


I was simply pointing out that Mach is a very old project, it did its thing, it had a lot of influence in the field, and a bunch of products sprung out of it. You know, the opposite of being a failure. 3 decades in the computing field are an eternity however, and a lot has happened since then.


Those products are dead. Even when MACH was used IBM and Apple designed their own kernels to improve performance - and skipped the resulting products when they performed much worse than anticipated.

OS/X isn't a MACH based operating system, it incorporates MACH, yes but:
. it isn't a microkernel design.
. drivers aren't user space.
. drivers doesn't use the MACH model.
. most system calls doesn't touch MACH code.

Now let's look at some other old operating system designs that inspired modern systems:
VMS - still going as the core of Windows NT, also as itself.
UNIX - still going in a variety of versions including one project strongly inspired by it - you may have heard of Linux?


Do you get it now, or do I have to write more slowly?


Ironic as it's you just don't understand.

Reply Parent Score: 3