Re: Codename G-OS

[dklugh@iwaynet.net]

All in all,I'm happy with staying with the ordinary Atari OS.

On 1997-10-24 zhulien@alphalink.com.au said:
   >> I didn't catch the whole thread here. Is G-OS going to be a
   >> universal GUI for all 8-bit computers? What existing GUI (if any)
   >Firstly we are currently designing a HAL (hardware compatibility
   >layer) that sits on top of the CPU to make all computers (8, 16 or
   >32 bit) alike from the programmers point of view.

A 32-bit 6502???

   >> will it resemble? If it were up to me, I would design a GUI
   >> with the best features of GEM (Atari ST), Intuition (Amiga), and
   >> NeXTSTEP (NeXt Computer). Namely, the Object-oriented nature
   >> of NeXTSTEP, combined with the Multitasking and extensibility
   >> of Intuition, along with the straightforwardness of GEM.
   >The OS is the next stage after the HAL and will probably have a CLI
   >and a GUI - I am opting for a shared library/devices scheme like
   >AmigaDOS.

Actually AmigaDOS has nothing to do with libraries,besides being stored in one.
Exec handles the libraries.AmigaDOS just handles "handlers" like DOS 
(the "filesystem handler") and CON:. (as opossed to exec's "devices")
Term programmes go straight to the OS instead of AmigaDOS's SER: handler.
I think that you meant "AmigaOS".

I never liked the arangment my self.Why would the "dos" library handle output
to the screen?
It's really more properly called the "UNIX" library since it organizes access
to the OS (which is VERY unlike UNIX) in a UNIX-like fashion.
(file handles,device handlers that take filenames (like DF0: and CON:))

Net-Tamer V 1.09  - Test Drive