Picture display software
NT
Is there an app that can turn an old laptop into a digital picture
frame? I mean a standalone app, not something that runs atop win or
linux, for very old lappies.
Thanks, NT
Chris H
s.com>, NT <meow...@care2.com> writes
There is the picture viewer that will run a slide show. I know it is on
top of windows but speed will not be an issue as I assume you will want
a cycle time of >30 Seconds
Running it on bare metal is far more difficult .
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
philo
> In message <734eb25c-4253-4b32...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroup
> s.com>, NT <meow...@care2.com> writes
>> Hi
>>
>> Is there an app that can turn an old laptop into a digital picture
>> frame? I mean a standalone app, not something that runs atop win or
>> linux, for very old lappies.
>>
>> Thanks, NT
>
> There is the picture viewer that will run a slide show. I know it is on
> top of windows but speed will not be an issue as I assume you will want
> a cycle time of >30 Seconds
>
> Running it on bare metal is far more difficult .
>
Fastone is a good one too
philo
oops
that one runs in Windows
for a dos based viewer
maybe this one
http://dos.software.informer.com/download-dos-jpg-viewer-slideshow/
NT
> Why waste your time when you can get one that is designed to be a digital
> picture frame for around $35? Throw the laptop in the trash and you'll be
> much happier!
Yes, I have the choice between putting a program on a cd and having a
10" screen, and repeating the trick, or buying a 7" digiframe for 30
quid. I dont currently make £30 per 5 minutes = £360/hr, so why would
I do the latter?
NT
Charles E Hardwidge
news:adc642f6-a587-4ba0...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
You could EBay the laptop. It's not going to cost you anything to do that
and if it does sell you can use the money to buy a digital frame.
Would you rather have a big clunky POS screwing the Feng-shui or see it put
to good use and replace it with something more pleasing?
C'mon, there's careful and just plain fucking chiselling.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Larry Thong
> Yes, I have the choice between putting a program on a cd and having a
> 10" screen, and repeating the trick, or buying a 7" digiframe for 30
> quid. I dont currently make £30 per 5 minutes = £360/hr, so why would
> I do the latter?
You gots to do what you gots to do!
RustY �
The answer is no. You can't run a program without an operating system and
guess where your operating system is ?
Windows screen saver will do the job for you. It can be set to show pics in
any folder.
Chris H
<Jo...@NoSpam.com> writes
Yes it can. Many millions do every day. However in this case it is
pointless to do what he is attempting.
> The closest
>you can get is getting a Digital Frame which has built-in its own OS to
>display photo without using help of normal OS.
Some have built in OS. The majority of computers don't
Chris H
<No....@All.Thanks> writes
>
>"NT" <meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
>news:734eb25c-4253-4b32...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi
>>
>> Is there an app that can turn an old laptop into a digital picture
>> frame? I mean a standalone app, not something that runs atop win or
>> linux, for very old lappies.
>>
>> Thanks, NT
>
>The answer is no. You can't run a program without an operating system
Yes you can.. Though in this case it is pointless.
>Windows screen saver will do the job for you. It can be set to show pics in
>any folder.
Also the preview program... not looked to see if either will do it with
sound.
NT
> "NT" <meow2...@care2.com> wrote in message
> news:734eb25c-4253-4b32...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi
>
> > Is there an app that can turn an old laptop into a digital picture
> > frame? I mean a standalone app, not something that runs atop win or
> > linux, for very old lappies.
>
> > Thanks, NT
>
> The answer is no. You can't run a program without an operating system and
> guess where your operating system is ?
I was looking for software that contains minimal OS and app in one
piece, just like for example memtest86 does. I'm surprised some people
didn't grasp that.
There are so many old laptops around I'd be surprised if no-one has
written such an app.
Yes I could ebay the laptops, but I've zero interest in doing so, and
ditto in spending 3 figures for less hardware than I already have.
NT
Alan Browne
> "NT" <meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
> news:734eb25c-4253-4b32...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi
>>
>> Is there an app that can turn an old laptop into a digital picture
>> frame? I mean a standalone app, not something that runs atop win or
>> linux, for very old lappies.
>>
>> Thanks, NT
>
> The answer is no. You can't run a program without an operating system and
> guess where your operating system is ?
I used to write all sorts of embedded s/w that used no o/s other than
support elements I wrote for it or re-used from other code.
philo
I did on 2nd reading that's why I gave you a link to a dos-based app.
there does have to be at least some minimal OS installed.
OTOH: Since you are just in need of a slide show...
no problem running Windows as you will be using just one light application.
If you like transitions...the first link I gave you will
give you a nice slide show and nice transitions
I gave a friend of mine an old P-1 laptop that he uses for just that
NT
I think there may be a communication shortfall somewhere here. I'm
aware that in principle I could run all sorts of things atop win
95/3.1/etc, but I specifically am looking for an app/os that will boot
from cd (or possibly floppy). I'm certainly not willing to do the work
to make a portable win install, or to try and get the machines running
windows. DOS is portable enough, but that means an external device to
run both cd and flop at same time. Its just not what I'm looking for.
Unfortunately none of these old machines can run a linux live desktop
OS cd.
NT
Charles E Hardwidge
> I think there may be a communication shortfall somewhere here. I'm
> aware that in principle I could run all sorts of things atop win
> 95/3.1/etc, but I specifically am looking for an app/os that will boot
> from cd (or possibly floppy). I'm certainly not willing to do the work
> to make a portable win install, or to try and get the machines running
> windows. DOS is portable enough, but that means an external device to
> run both cd and flop at same time. Its just not what I'm looking for.
>
> Unfortunately none of these old machines can run a linux live desktop
> OS cd.
You don't want to spend money. You don't want to spend time. You don't want
to EBay the laptop. You don't want to buy a digital frame. Now, this laptop
doesn't have a fucking hard disc.
GET A FUCKING GRIP.
Create a bootable FreeDOS CD, or just EBay the damn thing and buy a digital
frame you prick. Accept you've got to make some effort or toss the sodding
because you can't lump a lump of shit into a gold brick.
Christ, preserve me from clients...
--
Charles E Hardwidge
philo
I think you missed the point.
Everyone here in fact *does* understand your question...
but to run an application you will need some type of operating system.
Some apps will run on a minimal version of DOS...
which consists of *three* files.
Chris H
<ph...@privacy.net> writes
>I think you missed the point.
>
>Everyone here in fact *does* understand your question...
>but to run an application you will need some type of operating system.
NO YOU NO NOT!!! You do NOT need any OS to run a program on a PC. You
just have to write the program to run without one... It's not difficult.
>Some apps will run on a minimal version of DOS...
>which consists of *three* files.
And some run with no OS at all....
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> RustY © wrote:
>> The answer is no. You can't run a program without an operating system and
>> guess where your operating system is ?
> I used to write all sorts of embedded s/w that used no o/s other than
> support elements I wrote for it or re-used from other code.
So you wrote a minimal OS that was embedded into your (embedded)
software ... which is a good idea if you have non-changing hardware
with all needed specs and limited computing or battery capacity.
We can assume that the usual laptop will have a different hardware
from the next model (and too often even within the same model)
and little specs publically available, but lots of computing
capability.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> I was looking for software that contains minimal OS and app in one
> piece, just like for example memtest86 does.
Memtest86 does one (from the view of accessing hardware) very
simple, minimal thing, and doesn't talk to the hundreds of
different graphics drivers found in notebooks.
> There are so many old laptops around I'd be surprised if no-one has
> written such an app.
Linux ia available, there are dozens of dozens mini-distributions
that fit on one or two floppies and many more that work from CD.
Why should one do tons of work to produce a buggy, limited app that
has little, if any, advantage over a trimmed down linux kernel,
(maybe also X) and any image showing app?
> ditto in spending 3 figures for less hardware than I already have.
Well, you laptop draws way more power than an image viewer.
However, if you insist, you could write the app you want
yourself --- all the building blocks are there, their source code
is there, you are even allowed to use the source code ...
-Wolfgang
Chris H
Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes
>Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> RustY � wrote:
>
>>> The answer is no. You can't run a program without an operating system and
>>> guess where your operating system is ?
>
>> I used to write all sorts of embedded s/w that used no o/s other than
>> support elements I wrote for it or re-used from other code.
>
>So you wrote a minimal OS that was embedded into your (embedded)
>software ...
I doubt it. Most applications in the embedded world have no OS at all.
RustY �
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:8O5pFfFL...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
> You do NOT need any OS to run a program on a PC. You
> just have to write the program to run without one... It's not difficult.
>
So what language would you recomend for this task ?
Chris H
<Jo...@NoSpam.com> writes
>without Operating System probably wins the JOKE of 2009.
Keep digging a hole. Most of our customers write applications to run
without an OS.
Over the last 30 years only a few of my apps have ever run on an OR or
RTOS.
Chris H
writes
C (Usually MISRA-C)
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> In message <bb3ps6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes
>>Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> I used to write all sorts of embedded s/w that used no o/s other than
>>> support elements I wrote for it or re-used from other code.
>>So you wrote a minimal OS that was embedded into your (embedded)
>>software ...
> I doubt it. Most applications in the embedded world have no OS at all.
You misunderstand on purpose what these "support elements",
especially the ones re-used from other code are in spirit,
though not in name. Alternatively, you don't fully grasp the
idea of what an OS is and does and didn't read the important
"no o/s *other* *than*" part.
-Wolfgang
philo
> In message <0ZudndE53vQ7pmTX...@ntd.net>, philo
> <ph...@privacy.net> writes
>> I think you missed the point.
>>
>> Everyone here in fact *does* understand your question...
>> but to run an application you will need some type of operating system.
>
> NO YOU NO NOT!!! You do NOT need any OS to run a program on a PC. You
> just have to write the program to run without one... It's not difficult.
>
>> Some apps will run on a minimal version of DOS...
>> which consists of *three* files.
>
> And some run with no OS at all....
>
you need some type of OS (though minimal of course)
or your machine will not boot up.
Even if you have an application with all the code built in
to include the boot loader, i/o configuration and possibly memory
management...
it's still an operating system.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:MvudnXOTnNl1vWbX...@ntd.net...
> Chris H wrote:
>> And some run with no OS at all....
>
> you need some type of OS (though minimal of course)
> or your machine will not boot up.
>
> Even if you have an application with all the code built in
> to include the boot loader, i/o configuration and possibly memory
> management...
> it's still an operating system.
This subject is like discussing what's a planet and what's a planetoid.
Strictly speaking, DOS is barely an operating system just as much as, say,
an app can include the functionality/library code to perform tasks typically
performed by an OS. The line between them and form is arbitrary.
If matey wants to be really anal he can rip out the BIOS and write his own
as most of the stuff in there is timewasting crap.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
philo
Yep
it's all semantics at this point...
Charles E Hardwidge
I get the feeling the OP isn't very clear what he wants and is holding back.
I've seen that in here a few times and real world clients pull the same
stunt. Partly, that's understanding. Partly, how people feel.
The goal of a picture frame can be achieved with a clunker of a laptop or at
the other end with a more pleasing dedicated digital frame. Whatever option
is picked involves some compromise.
The best choice so far looks like a DOS/FreeDOS app. Anything neater will
require a case mod. A dedicated frame is smaller but more aesthetically
pleasing and EBaying the laptop can pay for it.
It's decision time for someone.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
philo
The real kicker is that if the OP does use a laptop...
and only wants it for a picture display, then no matter how underpowered
it is...if it's got an operating system on it and he uses software such
as Faststone...it will operate fine...the OS will have nothing else to do.
The reason I suggested it was simply because it has *many* good
transitions...and whenever I present a slide show...people are
fascinated by it...
No big deal to me though
Charles E Hardwidge
> The real kicker is that if the OP does use a laptop...
> and only wants it for a picture display, then no matter how underpowered
> it is...if it's got an operating system on it and he uses software such as
> Faststone...it will operate fine...the OS will have nothing else to do.
>
> The reason I suggested it was simply because it has *many* good
> transitions...and whenever I present a slide show...people are fascinated
> by it...
>
> No big deal to me though
It sounds like a reasonable solution. It works and you have a positive
experience with it. Case closed!
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
<ph...@privacy.net> writes
Not really. Only about 4% of the computer systems in the world are PC's
the vast majority of systems are embedded systems (from 8-128 bit
systems) and comparatively few have any form or OS or RTOS.
Chris H
<ph...@privacy.net> writes
I agree... There are several apps, "preview" and screen saver that are
built in (not to mention the file system) that will do what he wants.
There are also a number of free 3rd party apps eg Fastone that will also
work. I can't see the point of removing the OS and writing your own
app.
Chris H
As we are an embedded tools supplier (and we have several RTOS) and I
have been an embedded systems Engineer for 30 years working without an
OS on the targets and my degree focused on OS and RTOS I have a
reasonable idea.
Chris H
<ph...@privacy.net> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <0ZudndE53vQ7pmTX...@ntd.net>, philo
>> <ph...@privacy.net> writes
>>> I think you missed the point.
>>>
>>> Everyone here in fact *does* understand your question...
>>> but to run an application you will need some type of operating system.
>> NO YOU NO NOT!!! You do NOT need any OS to run a program on a PC.
>>You
>> just have to write the program to run without one... It's not difficult.
>>
>>> Some apps will run on a minimal version of DOS...
>>> which consists of *three* files.
>> And some run with no OS at all....
>>
>
>
>
>you need some type of OS (though minimal of course)
>or your machine will not boot up.
Not in the least part accurate. No OS is needed at all. The vast
majority of computer systems in the world run without any form of OS.
>Even if you have an application with all the code built in
>to include the boot loader, i/o configuration and possibly memory
>management...
>it's still an operating system.
No it is not. There is no OS in the vast majority of systems itnhe
world.
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <c4crs6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes
>>You misunderstand on purpose what these "support elements",
>>especially the ones re-used from other code are in spirit,
>>though not in name. Alternatively, you don't fully grasp the
>>idea of what an OS is and does and didn't read the important
>>"no o/s *other* *than*" part.
>
> As we are an embedded tools supplier (and we have several RTOS) and I
> have been an embedded systems Engineer for 30 years working without an
> OS on the targets and my degree focused on OS and RTOS I have a
> reasonable idea.
It can also make you into an arrogant socially autistic cunt. Wolfgang is
correct to raise equivalence, and philo is correct to raise semantics. Try
cutting them some slack instead of trying to be "right" and dismissing other
peoples effective contribution.
Certainty repeated is not experience. It's habit.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:G+VnJID6...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <c4crs6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
>> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes
>
>>>You misunderstand on purpose what these "support elements",
>>>especially the ones re-used from other code are in spirit,
>>>though not in name. Alternatively, you don't fully grasp the
>>>idea of what an OS is and does and didn't read the important
>>>"no o/s *other* *than*" part.
>>
>> As we are an embedded tools supplier (and we have several RTOS) and I
>> have been an embedded systems Engineer for 30 years working without an
>> OS on the targets and my degree focused on OS and RTOS I have a
>> reasonable idea.
>
>It can also make you into an arrogant socially autistic cunt.
You seem to have personal experience at being
>an arrogant socially autistic cunt.
> Wolfgang is
>correct to raise equivalence, and philo is correct to raise semantics. Try
>cutting them some slack instead of trying to be "right"
ErrI am write and they are wrong... what is to discuss?
> and dismissing other
>peoples effective contribution.
I didn't. There was no effective contribution. They do not understand
that the majority of systems do not have an RTOS or OS. Not my fault if
they don't understand that computers do not need an OS
Charles E Hardwidge
> I didn't. There was no effective contribution. They do not understand
> that the majority of systems do not have an RTOS or OS. Not my fault if
> they don't understand that computers do not need an OS
I think, they get it and they do understand most computers don't have an OS,
at least, in the classic sense. When you're too hardline about these things
it tends to blot everything else out and piss people off. Definitions are
often a matter of degree and consensus involves chumming people. A little
pragmatism, flexibility, and patience can help push things along.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:zeJqBfGI...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>> I didn't. There was no effective contribution. They do not understand
>> that the majority of systems do not have an RTOS or OS. Not my fault if
>> they don't understand that computers do not need an OS
>
>I think, they get it and they do understand most computers don't have an OS,
>at least, in the classic sense.
Not in any sense
>When you're too hardline about these things
It is "not hard" line it is just a fact that there is no OS in any sense
in the majority of systems and people were saying that an OS was
required. That was just plain wrong. Like saying some one who is dead is
a little unwell.
>it tends to blot everything else out and piss people off.
Only you.
> Definitions are
>often a matter of degree and consensus involves chumming people.
CRAP. Definitions are defined. In this case an OS is NOT required. The
vast majority of apps run without any form of OS. Saying anything else
is wrong.
>A little
>pragmatism, flexibility, and patience can help push things along.
Heed your own advice.
philo
Note:
but the guy *specifically* said PC
tony cooper
wrote:
>>correct to raise equivalence, and philo is correct to raise semantics. Try
>>cutting them some slack instead of trying to be "right"
>
>ErrI am write and they are wrong... what is to discuss?
>
Semantics, for one, if you think you are "write".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Storkamp
<d881696d-4830-41c2...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
NT <meow...@care2.com> wrote:
> I think there may be a communication shortfall somewhere here. I'm
> aware that in principle I could run all sorts of things atop win
> 95/3.1/etc, but I specifically am looking for an app/os that will boot
> from cd (or possibly floppy). I'm certainly not willing to do the work
> to make a portable win install, or to try and get the machines running
> windows. DOS is portable enough, but that means an external device to
> run both cd and flop at same time. Its just not what I'm looking for.
>
> Unfortunately none of these old machines can run a linux live desktop
> OS cd.
>
It would certainly be possible to write something that uses nothing but
BIOS calls to read the disk and write to the display. There were Vesa
BIOS extensions implemented in some systems that allowed code to run in
protected mode or window the display to access a segment larger than
64k. But these were being developed about the same time as Windows(tm)
was becoming popular, so not every BIOS bothered to implement them since
Windows was using their own video drivers anyway. Alternately, the
standard video BIOS allows VGA resolutions up the 320x200 in a whopping
256 colors, or EGA resolutions at 640 x 400 in 16 colors.
It would take some digging to find out the details, (I still have a copy
of the source code for one version of BIOS around here somewhere) but I
believe the BIOS system loader reads the 1st sector of the disk and
loads it at 0:100h, then it's up to that code to find the bottom of
memory from the BIOS Data Area and load the rest of itself at that point
(since offset fixups are done by the OS, not the BIOS, it better be
position independent code).
The point is, yes it could be done, but nobody in their right mind would
put the effort into it (unless you want to pay for it, just send me an
RFQ and a credit reference).
Just load a version of Linux, or Windows 95/98 and be done with it.
Alan Browne
Doesn't matter. You can change the boot code (flash memory) to run from
address 0xFFF0 and do anything you want from there. That is the first
instruction address in the x86 after power on (usual first instruction
is a JMP to somewhere else). (From then on, of course, you better be
sure that you have the tools to -change- the flash code as part of your
new s/w package, however). (Note in later x86 systems, the boot address
might not be 0xFFF0 - I haven't dabbled in a long time...).
Alan Browne
> In message <bb3ps6-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
> Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes
>> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> RustY © wrote:
>>>> The answer is no. You can't run a program without an operating system and
>>>> guess where your operating system is ?
>>> I used to write all sorts of embedded s/w that used no o/s other than
>>> support elements I wrote for it or re-used from other code.
>> So you wrote a minimal OS that was embedded into your (embedded)
>> software ...
>
> I doubt it. Most applications in the embedded world have no OS at all.
>
>
Exactly. Having a bunch of s/r that did specific I/O, math and task
queues is not an OS. The "task queues" might be mistaken for an O/S by
the non RT coder, but is really just a way to decouple order and
priority of processing in a RT environment. Esp. one with many h/w
interrupts, polled inputs and critically scheduled outputs.
One in particular comes to mind: 100,000 interrupts/sec, computation of
two complex signals (gaussian "shaped" sine with PR FM modulation, and
AM noise simulation) and their output (via the interrupt) at 50,000 Hz
each with 180 deg phase offset (and please avoid noise correlation
between the SIN and COS channels if you're a good lad). 400 lines of
320C25 assembler. No OS. (No room or time for an OS). One big mother
of a loop, a few lines of interrupt and poll for input at the top of the
loop.
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <L_QKm.4234$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>A little pragmatism, flexibility, and patience can help push things along.
>
> Heed your own advice.
I usually do though the execution can always improve.
What you missed is the change of subject to management and giving you an
opportunity to square that circle. In some places that would nix your
promotion prospects or be a career ending move.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Alan Browne
But Harwidge is wrong (as if that's a surprise). DOS is a proper OS as
it provides services for applications and general support for
peripherals and so on. It even includes redirection of data flow
(pipes) for program to program communication. That is an OS.
An embedded computer does not need an OS of any kind. Just the
functions that support the needs of the code. Further, in many embedded
apps, the code is often written close to the metal with specific h/w
addresses, port numbers and the like hard coded. In this sense there
are no abstraction layers between the embedded code and the hardware - a
common requirement of an OS - including DOS.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:V56dnR7NcvnTDGHX...@giganews.com...
> But Harwidge is wrong (as if that's a surprise). DOS is a proper OS as it
> provides services for applications and general support for peripherals and
> so on. It even includes redirection of data flow (pipes) for program to
> program communication. That is an OS.
>
> An embedded computer does not need an OS of any kind. Just the functions
> that support the needs of the code. Further, in many embedded apps, the
> code is often written close to the metal with specific h/w addresses, port
> numbers and the like hard coded. In this sense there are no abstraction
> layers between the embedded code and the hardware - a common requirement
> of an OS - including DOS.
DOS doesn't fit everyone's definition of an OS. Note: I said DOS is *barely*
an OS which is certainly true compared to Unix and other OS.
I also don't carry grudges and talk about people in the third person while
hiding behind a killfile and ignoring their positive contributions.
It may come as a surprise but people can know more than you suppose and not
run comment past you for approval. That's what this is about: your ego.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DRS
news:R61Lm.4457$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:V56dnR7NcvnTDGHX...@giganews.com...
>
>> But Harwidge is wrong (as if that's a surprise). DOS is a proper OS
>> as it provides services for applications and general support for
>> peripherals and so on. It even includes redirection of data flow
>> (pipes) for program to program communication. That is an OS.
>>
>> An embedded computer does not need an OS of any kind. Just the
>> functions that support the needs of the code. Further, in many
>> embedded apps, the code is often written close to the metal with
>> specific h/w addresses, port numbers and the like hard coded. In
>> this sense there are no abstraction layers between the embedded code
>> and the hardware - a common requirement of an OS - including DOS.
>
> DOS doesn't fit everyone's definition of an OS. Note: I said DOS is
> *barely* an OS which is certainly true compared to Unix and other OS.
True. The "disk" in DOS is hugely important, as roughly half of its
functionality is related in some fashion to data storage. Whether the rest
of its functionality - which provides precious few services to applications
and doesn't even try to hinder apps from avoiding them - adds up to an
operating system is for academics to squabble over. "Barely an OS" is as
reasonable a description as the rest of us should need in order to be able
to move on.
Alan Browne
Not true for the reasons I outlined. DOS is an OS. And for reasons
that go well beyond "disk". It is certainly not a 21st century OS, and
only "adequate" in the 1980's. But an OS just the same. And not barely.
And one 'ility alone makes it so. The ability of any program using the
standard IO to output data via the "pipe" to any other program that
would read that data, neither program being specifically designed with
the other in mind. A very simple example would be:
C:> ZULUX SURVEY.DAT | SORT > C:\DAX\FILE.TXT
Where the "|" takes the output of the program called ZULUX (using the
data in SURVEY.DAT) and passes it to the program called SORT and the
output of SORT is stored in FILE.TXT. (FILE.TXT could have been "LPT1"
instead, eg: the output routed to "line printer 1"). [apologies if I've
made syntax errors, it's been a long time...]
That is a fundamental OS function (*NIX, OS X, HP-UX, AIX, etc. have the
same, though much more capable, of course).
Embedded machines typically are much more narrowly defined and does not
include general 'ilities at all.
Charles E Hardwidge
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
Not even academics can agree where the line between an OS and non-OS is, and
different domains have their own consensus. This is the bit you're not
listening to in your rush to trample everyone with YOUR perception. You're
trying so hard to be "right" and "win" you're being a pompous prick. Again.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:V56dnR7NcvnTDGHX...@giganews.com...
>
>> But Harwidge is wrong (as if that's a surprise). DOS is a proper OS as it
>> provides services for applications and general support for peripherals and
>> so on. It even includes redirection of data flow (pipes) for program to
>> program communication. That is an OS.
>>
>> An embedded computer does not need an OS of any kind. Just the functions
>> that support the needs of the code. Further, in many embedded apps, the
>> code is often written close to the metal with specific h/w addresses, port
>> numbers and the like hard coded. In this sense there are no abstraction
>> layers between the embedded code and the hardware - a common requirement
>> of an OS - including DOS.
>
>DOS doesn't fit everyone's definition of an OS.
It should do. Why would it not?
> Note: I said DOS is *barely*
>an OS which is certainly true compared to Unix and other OS.
Not at all. DOS is an OS. I have several that do not even have a file
system.
Chris H
<Jo...@NoSpam.com> writes
>philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> >> you need some type of OS (though minimal of course)
>> >> or your machine will not boot up.
>> >
>> > Not in the least part accurate. No OS is needed at all. The vast
>> > majority of computer systems in the world run without any form of OS.
>> >
>> >> Even if you have an application with all the code built in
>> >> to include the boot loader, i/o configuration and possibly memory
>> >> management...
>> >> it's still an operating system.
>> >
>> > No it is not. There is no OS in the vast majority of systems itnhe
>> > world.
>>
>> Note:
>>
>> but the guy *specifically* said PC
>
>display the photo on computer, the piece of METAL will need an OS to operate
>an application.
NO IT WILL NOT. It is that simple. I have rarely used an OS.
In fact you can program x86 systems without a BIOS
Chris H
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes
Yes it is.
>Embedded machines typically are much more narrowly defined and does not
>include general 'ilities at all.
Yes and no.... There are embedded systems from 4 bits to 128 bit
systems. Some embedded systems run UNIX! However most RTOS start with
just a core and have file systems, USB, Ethernet and GUI's as optional
extras.
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <R61Lm.4457$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>DOS doesn't fit everyone's definition of an OS.
>
> It should do. Why would it not?
>
>> Note: I said DOS is *barely* an OS which is certainly true compared to
>> Unix and other OS.
>
> Not at all. DOS is an OS. I have several that do not even have a file
> system.
For DOS "should" be an OS read Chris "insists" it's an OS. What part of
different definitions and consensus don't you get you fucking arrogant
socially autistic prick? I'm not going to change my mind or kiss your ass
just because you keep trying to force it. NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
I can accept different definitions of OS and that different domains have
different consensus as to what an OS is. That doesn't mean one is wrong and
the other is right. They're probably all right for the particular point of
view they take and uses they have. GET OVER IT.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> In fact you can program x86 systems without a BIOS
What I said but you didn't have the grace to admit it nor did you admit you
fucked up on technology versus management.
This is really about you "winning" isn't it? If you stepped back a bit from
being a pompous prick you'd see it's won you nothing.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:$zG56QAw6R$KF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <R61Lm.4457$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>
>>>DOS doesn't fit everyone's definition of an OS.
>>
>> It should do. Why would it not?
>>
>>> Note: I said DOS is *barely* an OS which is certainly true compared to
>>> Unix and other OS.
>>
>> Not at all. DOS is an OS. I have several that do not even have a file
>> system.
>
>For DOS "should" be an OS read Chris "insists" it's an OS. What part of
>different definitions and consensus don't you get you fucking arrogant
>socially autistic prick? I'm not going to change my mind or kiss your ass
>just because you keep trying to force it. NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
Not my problem you are not in the SW industry and don't understand.
>I can accept different definitions of OS and that different domains have
>different consensus as to what an OS is.
OK... My domain is the SW industry. Yours is?
>That doesn't mean one is wrong and
>the other is right. They're probably all right for the particular point of
>view they take and uses they have. GET OVER IT.
Calm down.
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:YA6A2vBDCS$KF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>> In fact you can program x86 systems without a BIOS
>
>What I said but you didn't have the grace to admit it nor did you admit you
>fucked up on technology versus management.
I did not. I am an Engineer.
>This is really about you "winning" isn't it? If you stepped back a bit from
>being a pompous prick you'd see it's won you nothing.
You do seem to have a problem dealing with people and reality.
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <AL9Lm.4516$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>What I said but you didn't have the grace to admit it nor did you admit
>>you fucked up on technology versus management.
>
> I did not. I am an Engineer.
Exactly! You totally missed it and dig your heels in when it's pointed out
to you. Get some *perspective*.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <DI9Lm.4512$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>I can accept different definitions of OS and that different domains have
>>different consensus as to what an OS is.
>
> OK... My domain is the SW industry. Yours is?
I know what your domain is because I've been *paying attention*. Your domain
is a niche in the software industry, and the software industry is a niche in
the wider scheme of things. One swallow does not make a summer.
The problem with you (and Alan) is you're so busy talking about what you
know and looking down your nose you forget other people might know more or
be better at it than you. Hence, the insisting and lack of social skills.
Learn to listen and be kind. You'll achieve more.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:aQZACfFOMT$KFAoN@p
>haedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <AL9Lm.4516$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>
>>>What I said but you didn't have the grace to admit it nor did you
>>>admit you fucked up on technology versus management.
>>
>> I did not. I am an Engineer.
>
>Exactly! You totally missed it and dig your heels in when it's pointed
>out to you. Get some *perspective*.
I am also a manager and company director in the Sw industry. We can
supply several different types of OS and RTOS...
I also lecture on the technology and process.
Your expertise in this area is?
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:bwNAKGFcLT$KF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <DI9Lm.4512$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>
>>>I can accept different definitions of OS and that different domains have
>>>different consensus as to what an OS is.
>>
>> OK... My domain is the SW industry. Yours is?
>
>I know what your domain is because I've been *paying attention*. Your domain
>is a niche in the software industry, and the software industry is a niche in
>the wider scheme of things. One swallow does not make a summer.
We are both in the embedded sector... it is in every part of the world
and life.
>The problem with you (and Alan) is you're so busy talking about what you
>know and looking down your nose you forget other people might know more or
>be better at it than you. Hence, the insisting and lack of social skills.
>Learn to listen and be kind. You'll achieve more.
Yes... Your expertise in this field is?
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <HabLm.4551$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>I know what your domain is because I've been *paying attention*. Your
>>domain is a niche in the software industry, and the software industry is a
>>niche in the wider scheme of things. One swallow does not make a summer.
>
> We are both in the embedded sector... it is in every part of the world
> and life.
Pervasive is not the same as perceived. Again, you just refuse to get that
different people have different definitions and consensus. There's a
thousand shades of grey but Chris just wants to see black and white.
I've never disagreed with and accept your definition but it's only one of
many. You can't get over your narrow scope which is why you're trying to
squeeze the world into *your* box. But it don't work that way.
The issue here is /perception/ which is ironic given this is a photography
newsgroup. Engineers are not known to be wild or sociable, and it might also
explain why some peoples photos are so fucking B-O-R-I-N-G.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <13bLm.4544$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:aQZACfFOMT$KFAoN@p
>>haedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <AL9Lm.4516$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>
>>>>What I said but you didn't have the grace to admit it nor did you
>>>>admit you fucked up on technology versus management.
>>>
>>> I did not. I am an Engineer.
>>
>>Exactly! You totally missed it and dig your heels in when it's pointed
>>out to you. Get some *perspective*.
>
> I am also a manager and company director in the Sw industry. We can
> supply several different types of OS and RTOS...
Oh, you're a manager now. You're no fucking good at that either. Demands and
labels don't mean thing. It's just more fucking bullshit.
You're probably okay as a person but you've got a creativity and charisma
bypass. That's your weak spot. I suggest you open up more.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:wn66$fHBGU$KF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <HabLm.4551$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>
>>>I know what your domain is because I've been *paying attention*. Your
>>>domain is a niche in the software industry, and the software industry is a
>>>niche in the wider scheme of things. One swallow does not make a summer.
>>
>> We are both in the embedded sector... it is in every part of the world
>> and life.
>
>Pervasive is not the same as perceived. Again, you just refuse to get that
>different people have different definitions and consensus. There's a
>thousand shades of grey but Chris just wants to see black and white.
Sorry on technical definitions in a technical subject things are
precise.
The comments that you must have an OS for an application to run is
WRONG. There is no shade of grey there. You do not need any sort of OS
or RTOS or Scheduler not even a round robin
>I've never disagreed with and accept your definition but it's only one of
>many.
No. It is a binary choice in this case. Either an OS is needed for all
apps or not. It is not.
> You can't get over your narrow scope which is why you're trying to
>squeeze the world into *your* box. But it don't work that way.
You know nothing about my world but more to the point you have not yet
got any credibility to make any statements. You are just a fake email
address.
I have noted that most people like you hid behind fake ID's. It is
usually for reasons of insecurity and inferiority. SO you can try and
sound superior but on a one way basis in case anyone works out you
really don't know anything as in this case.
>The issue here is /perception/
No it is not. The statement was that you must have an OS to run an app.
You do not. It is that simple. It is simply that some people have such a
small view of the world that all they know are Pc's Macs and thing that
ALL computers need Windows, Linux, OSX etc. they have no idea of the
wider picture.
> which is ironic given this is a photography
>newsgroup. Engineers are not known to be wild or sociable, and it might also
>explain why some peoples photos are so fucking B-O-R-I-N-G.
:-) Now you really have shown your ignorance.
Chris Hills
FRGS, FRSA, RPS. (Published writer on travel and the arts, speaker and
columnist on technology)
And you are?
(Now watch the equivocation and avoidance :-)
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:0H87XGHbEU$KF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <13bLm.4544$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:aQZACfFOMT$KFAoN@p
>>>haedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <AL9Lm.4516$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>>>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>
>>>>>What I said but you didn't have the grace to admit it nor did you
>>>>>admit you fucked up on technology versus management.
>>>>
>>>> I did not. I am an Engineer.
>>>
>>>Exactly! You totally missed it and dig your heels in when it's pointed
>>>out to you. Get some *perspective*.
>>
>> I am also a manager and company director in the Sw industry. We can
>> supply several different types of OS and RTOS...
>
>Oh, you're a manager now. You're no fucking good at that either.
Our accountant would not agree with you. Increased turn over this year.
Not bad for a recession. Care to make any more stupid statements that
are just hot air?
>Demands and
>labels don't mean thing.
True.
>It's just more fucking bullshit.
Well that is your area of expertise.
>You're probably okay as a person but you've got a creativity and charisma
>bypass. That's your weak spot. I suggest you open up more.
Please come along to the next presentation I do. I have a good
reputation as a public speaker. Even done Keynote addresses at some
events. Yet again you are sounding like a petulant social inadequate.
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <SKbLm.4565$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
> You know nothing about my world but more to the point you have not yet
> got any credibility to make any statements. You are just a fake email
> address.
>
> I have noted that most people like you hid behind fake ID's. It is
> usually for reasons of insecurity and inferiority. SO you can try and
> sound superior but on a one way basis in case anyone works out you
> really don't know anything as in this case.
>
>>The issue here is /perception/
>
> No it is not. The statement was that you must have an OS to run an app.
> You do not. It is that simple. It is simply that some people have such a
> small view of the world that all they know are Pc's Macs and thing that
> ALL computers need Windows, Linux, OSX etc. they have no idea of the
> wider picture.
Where did I ever say you must have an OS to run an app? Try never. I just
accept a multiple range of equally valid definitions.
I post under my real name but take reasonable precautions. If you took risks
and posted in some of the places I have you'd do the same.
These topics always go the same way when anal desk jockeys get their teeth
into them. Relax. You'll do better and live longer.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:3kJLP7IN4U$KF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <SKbLm.4565$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>
>> You know nothing about my world but more to the point you have not yet
>> got any credibility to make any statements. You are just a fake email
>> address.
>>
>> I have noted that most people like you hid behind fake ID's. It is
>> usually for reasons of insecurity and inferiority. SO you can try and
>> sound superior but on a one way basis in case anyone works out you
>> really don't know anything as in this case.
>>
>>>The issue here is /perception/
>>
>> No it is not. The statement was that you must have an OS to run an app.
>> You do not. It is that simple. It is simply that some people have such a
>> small view of the world that all they know are Pc's Macs and thing that
>> ALL computers need Windows, Linux, OSX etc. they have no idea of the
>> wider picture.
>
>Where did I ever say you must have an OS to run an app? Try never. I just
>accept a multiple range of equally valid definitions.
Fair enough though you were supporting a definition that was not valid.
>I post under my real name but take reasonable precautions. If you took risks
>and posted in some of the places I have you'd do the same.
I can understand that. You seem to have a reputation.
>These topics always go the same way when anal desk jockeys get their teeth
>into them.
You would appear to know all about that.
> Relax.
I am relaxed.
> You'll do better and live longer.
Well actually I am immortal and no one has proved me wrong so far :-)
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <d8dLm.4603$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>Where did I ever say you must have an OS to run an app? Try never. I just
>>accept a multiple range of equally valid definitions.
>
> Fair enough though you were supporting a definition that was not valid.
>
>>I post under my real name but take reasonable precautions. If you took
>>risks and posted in some of the places I have you'd do the same.
>
> I can understand that. You seem to have a reputation.
I supported a range of valid definitions but the sticking point has been
your (and Alan's) inability to accept anything outside your narrow standard.
To many people (especially online) think that to win someone else has to
lose when in reality that is probably the furthest from the truth.
Most of that reputation is bullshit. I've been accused of everything from
working in Hazel Blears office to getting leaked copies of Nick Robinson's
blog before it was published. That doesn't count the fake web pages and
imposters, stalking, and the well funded Libertarian echo chamber.
Nobody knows anything about anything, eh?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <iWbLm.4570$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
> Our accountant would not agree with you. Increased turn over this year.
> Not bad for a recession. Care to make any more stupid statements that
> are just hot air?
> Please come along to the next presentation I do. I have a good
> reputation as a public speaker. Even done Keynote addresses at some
> events. Yet again you are sounding like a petulant social inadequate.
Okay, so you're a tailcoat success who preaches to undemanding squares. Yay.
But economics and personalities aren't really the point. It's just another
opportunity to put perspective on the table.
The ego often tries to box things in and attach itself to things. This is
true of photography but so is its opposite. Minor White and John Daido Loori
Roshi are but two people who had some comment on this.
"It's not not what you do". "This cannot be taught." Yaddah, yaddah.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:12ir7NLgHW$KF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <d8dLm.4603$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>
>>>Where did I ever say you must have an OS to run an app? Try never. I just
>>>accept a multiple range of equally valid definitions.
>>
>> Fair enough though you were supporting a definition that was not valid.
>>
>>>I post under my real name but take reasonable precautions. If you took
>>>risks and posted in some of the places I have you'd do the same.
>>
>> I can understand that. You seem to have a reputation.
>
>I supported a range of valid definitions
No you supported some invalid ones.
>but the sticking point has been
>your (and Alan's) inability to accept anything outside your narrow standard.
Again you are wrong. Alan and I have unlike you a very wide view having
worked on Macs PC's (win and Dos) several mini computer systems (ie
smaller than Mainframe but bigger than a PC) and embedded systems from
4-64 bit. And operating systems of many types (over a dozen)
So I can categorically state that you you can write apps that run on
bear metal that do not have an RTOS of any sort.
>To many people (especially online) think that to win someone else has to
>lose
You appear to hold to that.
>when in reality that is probably the furthest from the truth.
Quite. However supporting an invalid definition is a lose no matter how
you look at it.
>Most of that reputation is bullshit.
Of course. You just seem to cause that sort of reaction... it's not you
it's the rest of the world.
> I've been accused of everything from
>working in Hazel Blears office to getting leaked copies of Nick Robinson's
>blog before it was published. That doesn't count the fake web pages and
>imposters, stalking, and the well funded Libertarian echo chamber.
No idea about any of that.
Charles E Hardwidge
date. I'm not seeing you give an inch or take a more conciliatory tone so
I'll let whatever you've said be the last word and move on.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>You're trying to keep the argument going when it's way, way past its sell-by
>date.
> I'm not seeing you give an inch or take a more conciliatory tone so
Of course not it is you who is in the wrong. Both technically and
morally.
>I'll let whatever you've said be the last word and move on.
Oh good.
NT
wrote:
> "philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:P_idndE27dru1WbX...@ntd.net...
> > Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> >> "philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >>news:MvudnXOTnNl1vWbX...@ntd.net...
> >>> Chris H wrote:
>
> >>>> And some run with no OS at all....
>
> >>> you need some type of OS (though minimal of course)
> >>> or your machine will not boot up.
>
> >>> to include the boot loader, i/o configuration and possibly memory
> >>> management... it's still an operating system.
>
> >> Strictly speaking, DOS is barely an operating system just as much as,
> >> say, an app can include the functionality/library code to perform tasks
> >> typically performed by an OS. The line between them and form is
> >> arbitrary.
>
> >> If matey wants to be really anal he can rip out the BIOS and write his
> >> own as most of the stuff in there is timewasting crap.
>
> > Yep
>
> > it's all semantics at this point...
quite, just not a discussion worth having
> I get the feeling the OP isn't very clear what he wants and is holding back.
> I've seen that in here a few times and real world clients pull the same
> stunt. Partly, that's understanding. Partly, how people feel.
>
> The goal of a picture frame can be achieved with a clunker of a laptop or at
> the other end with a more pleasing dedicated digital frame. Whatever option
> is picked involves some compromise.
>
> The best choice so far looks like a DOS/FreeDOS app. Anything neater will
> require a case mod. A dedicated frame is smaller but more aesthetically
> pleasing and EBaying the laptop can pay for it.
>
> It's decision time for someone.
I've been perfectly clear what I'm looking for, a piece of software
that can be burnt to CD along with pictures and will run on a laptop
that has no other OS and wont run windows etc due to no hdd or not
enough ram.
The one pulling stunts here sure isnt me.
NT
Charles E Hardwidge
news:fa6109f3-46ea-499c...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Now you're telling us it doesn't have a HDD or enough ram. This is what
happens when you don't put the facts up front.
I've suggested you use FreeDOS because it's bootable from a CD, and you've
been given app suggestions by philo.
Get your head out of your ass, or STFU.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Pete
I'm totally confused. I found the original question interesting because I'd
wondered about using an old laptop as a photo frame. Addressing some of the
replies:
The suggestions that a laptop PC doesn't even need its BIOS, let alone an
OS, have given me endless amusement. It will run nicely until the CPU fan
needs switching on... The various posters obviously do not understand the PC
architecture and its requirements.
I have enough knowledge to write a photo frame program that bypasses the
BIOS and OS, but I haven't yet become senile enough to start the project.
The delineation between OS and application software has never been
established, even in US law courts. I would suggest that a PC BIOS is an
operating system simply because the PC and its hardware cannot operate
correctly without it.
The success or demise of any company depends on its marketing strategy, not
its technical expertise. Polishing a turd is theoretically impossible yet
multi-billions have been made out of doing it.
Claiming to be an expert, or simply claiming to have expert knowledge, puts
one in a position to be sued by all and sundry.
Self-employed/self-acclaimed "Engineers" who engage in pedantic argument are
living on borrowed time; employees who publicly argue are disrespecting
their employer.
Charles, you have rattled a few cages. May you long continue to do so.
Thank you.
Pete.
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:I8nLm.4870$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Alan Browne
> I'm totally confused. I found the original question interesting because I'd
> wondered about using an old laptop as a photo frame. Addressing some of the
> replies:
>
> The suggestions that a laptop PC doesn't even need its BIOS, let alone an
> OS, have given me endless amusement. It will run nicely until the CPU fan
> needs switching on... The various posters obviously do not understand the PC
> architecture and its requirements.
What a laugh. The need for things like CPU or system fan control, CPU
frequency control, and so on and so forth, are a bagatelle. They do not
need an "OS". They need to be part of the requirements when writing an
embedded system s/w design.
In fact, when spec'ing an embedded system one has to know all aspects of
the hardware underneath, including anything related to the hardware's
"health" while running. Nothing precludes the use of a PC board for an
embedded system.
Once upon a time we used dynamic ram in embedded design and as part of
the s/w design the code had to periodically perform a ram refresh cycle
without which the memory would fade away. Believe it or not, we managed
to write the embedded code with this requirement (and many, many others)
without having to have an OS of any kind. This is little different than
having to control a fan, or a status light.
Well, except that we often had to certify to DO-178B and
MIL-STD-2167/498. Testing and certifying to such is a long way beyond
issues about whether or not there is a BIOS. Way. And, no, we never
had BIOS, nor an OS in our certified systems. (In fact one would not be
able to certify DO-178B with BIOS without both access to the source code
and full configuration management.)
(There was only one DO-178B cert. RTOS that I ever heard of, but we did
not use it ... though we came close. It was in C IIRC, but we had a
contractual mandate to write in Ada, and for that matter the contract
stipulated that certain compileable supports in the language were
prohibited (recursion/re-entrancy and task rendez-vous in particular).
Further, multi-task pre-emption was a specific no-no. Had to be a very
monolithic, predictable behaviour system. (over 10,000 of that system
alone flying in many airliners as a primary navigation sensor...)
>
> I have enough knowledge to write a photo frame program that bypasses the
> BIOS and OS, but I haven't yet become senile enough to start the project.
>
> The delineation between OS and application software has never been
> established, even in US law courts. I would suggest that a PC BIOS is an
> operating system simply because the PC and its hardware cannot operate
> correctly without it.
That is a consequence of the architecture chosen for a somewhat open
platform that allows many variations of hardware to run a variety of OS's.
It would be entirely feasible to have the absolute minimum of bootstrap
code in board memory and that all other hardware related functions that
are normally done in the BIOS be stored on the disk. (For that matter,
most BIOS code is transferred from the BIOS into RAM for faster
execution in any case.) The "BIOS chip" is just storage. This works
for PC platforms because every board model has different hardware
implementations and so functions needing hardware support need to be
abstracted at that level. Putting the BIOS code on disk for loading
after bootstrap would be a configuration nightmare. So it's stored on
the board. Other than that, NBFD.
That said, one could easily replace the BIOS with ones own code. At
power up the first instruction executed is at 0xFFF0 (x86). What you do
after that is your own affair. (But better include turning on those
fans... ;-) ).
>
> The success or demise of any company depends on its marketing strategy, not
> its technical expertise. Polishing a turd is theoretically impossible yet
> multi-billions have been made out of doing it.
>
> Claiming to be an expert, or simply claiming to have expert knowledge, puts
> one in a position to be sued by all and sundry.
>
> Self-employed/self-acclaimed "Engineers" who engage in pedantic argument are
> living on borrowed time; employees who publicly argue are disrespecting
> their employer.
I have no idea what this last little rant is about but it is nothing.
Really nothing.
Other than that, please do not top post.
>
>
> Charles, you have rattled a few cages. May you long continue to do so.
Charles has not rattled my cage as I don't live in one as he, and you,
appear to do.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Chris H wrote:
>> I doubt it. Most applications in the embedded world have no OS at all.
> Exactly. Having a bunch of s/r that did specific I/O, math and task
> queues is not an OS. The "task queues" might be mistaken for an O/S by
> the non RT coder, but is really just a way to decouple order and
> priority of processing in a RT environment.
Then I'd be interested in your opinion: What is the crucial step
missing for it to become an OS?
-Wolfgang
Pete
Alan Browne wrote:
Nothing related to the original issue.
I think that solves the top-posting issue.
I can't wait to see your photo frame with an embedded laptop.
Feasible? Of course. Let us know how many you sell.
Other than that, either follow all Netiquette Guidelines or STFU.
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
We agree... Set BIOS to boot from CD and use FreeDOS Then use Borland C
to write the app using only BIOS calls and direct hardware manipulation
Chris H
s.com>, NT <meow...@care2.com> writes
>
>I've been perfectly clear what I'm looking for, a piece of software
>that can be burnt to CD along with pictures and will run on a laptop
>that has no other OS and wont run windows etc due to no hdd or not
>enough ram.
Now you didn't mention No Hard disk before did you?
Your problem is that with no OS you may not have CD drivers unless they
are in the BIOS rom. I think you will need the Borland ROM Pack for
writing x86 SW that is romable.
You will need to set the BIOS to run from CD and write a "bootable" CD
Chris H
<Jo...@NoSpam.com> writes
>NT <meow...@care2.com> wrote:
>
>> > It's decision time for someone.
>>
>>
>> I've been perfectly clear what I'm looking for, a piece of software
>> that can be burnt to CD along with pictures and will run on a laptop
>> that has no other OS and wont run windows etc due to no hdd or not
>> enough ram.
>>
>> The one pulling stunts here sure isnt me.
>>
>>
>> NT
>
>System.
And Joel you are COMPLETELY WRONG most of the apps I write do not have
an OS of any kind. There quite a few x86 boards that don't have an OS
> And why don't you talk directly to the experts here who think a computer
>without Operating System
Good idea.
> as they have been currently using application
>without OS to post Usenet messages here hehehe
Now you are talking CRAP. I am using XP, OSX and Solaris.
Alan Browne
out: no dedicated system needs to be written atop of an OS.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:RNqdnds8jb2MzJ3W...@giganews.com...
Nobody said it couldn't you pompous prick. What, do you think you're the
only person who knows something? The bit you're missing, dog breath, is that
"OS" is a matter of definition and consensus. There's a world outside Alan
Browne's ego.
Back when you were lecturing how mega-uber-important it was to have
Photoshop and waste my time developing l33t skillz instead of using PTLens
you didn't stop to think I may own CS4 and have other things to do.
Cluetrain: I am (as part of another project) designing and implementing a
fucking operating system. I've also had a small but significant role in the
legal and marketing aspects of an OS.
WTF/.??? LOL. @#&*. MY DICK IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!!!!!
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>news:RNqdnds8jb2MzJ3W...@giganews.com...
>> Pete wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> Nothing related to the original issue.
>>>
>>> I think that solves the top-posting issue.
>>>
>>> I can't wait to see your photo frame with an embedded laptop.
>>>
>>> Feasible? Of course. Let us know how many you sell.
>>>
>>> Other than that, either follow all Netiquette Guidelines or STFU.
>>>
>> Jeez Pete, you can't take the simple truth that Chris H and I pointed out:
>> no dedicated system needs to be written atop of an OS.
>
>Nobody said it couldn't you pompous prick. What, do you think you're the
>only person who knows something? The bit you're missing, dog breath, is that
>"OS" is a matter of definition and consensus. There's a world outside Alan
>Browne's ego.
Correct. It is a matter of definition and the definition is you do not
need an OS.
>Cluetrain: I am (as part of another project) designing and implementing a
>fucking operating system. I've also had a small but significant role in the
>legal and marketing aspects of an OS.
In which case you are either lying, deluded or just doing marketing
spin. You can write an app that does not need any form of OS.
BTW which OS are you working on?
Charles E Hardwidge
> BTW which OS are you working on?
As for the OS project I'm not making any claims and it may never see the
market. Either way it's none of your fucking business.
What, you actually expect something after calling me a liar and and trying
to put words in my mouth? Not everyone's a contrary wanker.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:cj7xuXA5...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>> BTW which OS are you working on?
>
>As for the OS project I'm not making any claims and it may never see the
>market. Either way it's none of your fucking business.
You mean it does not exist and you are lying? It is only my business
because YOU brought it up in a discussion on OS.
Put up or Shut up
>What, you actually expect something after calling me a liar and and
>trying to put words in my mouth? Not everyone's a contrary wanker.
Just you it seems. Put up or shut up.
If you are working on an OS which one?
I have worked on several (that is worked on not written apps to run on)
and writing app to run on a few but most of my apps had no OS or
anything that was eve remotely like an OS. There was no return from
main.
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <Ji9Mm.5647$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:cj7xuXA5...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> BTW which OS are you working on?
>>
>>As for the OS project I'm not making any claims and it may never see the
>>market. Either way it's none of your fucking business.
>
> You mean it does not exist and you are lying? It is only my business
> because YOU brought it up in a discussion on OS.
>
> Put up or Shut up
>
>>What, you actually expect something after calling me a liar and and
>>trying to put words in my mouth? Not everyone's a contrary wanker.
>
> Just you it seems. Put up or shut up.
> If you are working on an OS which one?
>
> I have worked on several (that is worked on not written apps to run on)
> and writing app to run on a few but most of my apps had no OS or
> anything that was eve remotely like an OS. There was no return from
> main.
I only mentioned it in passing to make the point that Alan (and you) aren't
the only people who know stuff. But, you've got to be nosey and mouth off,
like I'm supposed to buckle or give a fuck. If you listened and weren't such
a pair of douchebags you'd further.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:8B5ZGDFz...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <Ji9Mm.5647$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
>> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>news:cj7xuXA5...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> BTW which OS are you working on?
>>>
>>>As for the OS project I'm not making any claims and it may never see the
>>>market. Either way it's none of your fucking business.
>>
>> You mean it does not exist and you are lying? It is only my business
>> because YOU brought it up in a discussion on OS.
>>
>> Put up or Shut up
>>
>>>What, you actually expect something after calling me a liar and and
>>>trying to put words in my mouth? Not everyone's a contrary wanker.
>>
>> Just you it seems. Put up or shut up.
>> If you are working on an OS which one?
>>
>> I have worked on several (that is worked on not written apps to run on)
>> and writing app to run on a few but most of my apps had no OS or
>> anything that was eve remotely like an OS. There was no return from
>> main.
>
>I only mentioned it in passing to make the point that Alan (and you) aren't
>the only people who know stuff.
You have yet to show that you know anything about Operating systems. All
you seem to be doing is making stuff up and pushing an argument for the
sake of it when you are wrong.
> But, you've got to be nosey and mouth off,
>like I'm supposed to buckle or give a fuck. If you listened and weren't such
>a pair of douchebags you'd further.
You shot your mouth off saying you were working on an OS and when
challenged you can do is bluster and use foul language.
Admit you are wrong. Simple as that.
Charles E Hardwidge
I've commented that multiple definitions are valid and touched on some
project, and that's about it. Never said your definition was wrong. Never
said I was making any claims about an outcome.
Most of what you're railing against and your attitude is a delusion. It's
just a product of you not paying attention and making stuff up. And it
wouldn't be the first time a Zen Buddhist made some ego look a prick.
Touch, you're IT.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Chris H
Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>> Admit you are wrong. Simple as that.
>
>I've commented that multiple definitions are valid
I agree but the one you are arguing about is not valid.
>and touched on some
>project, and that's about it.
You use "some project" as validation of your views and when called upon
to substantiate it failed to do so.
>Never said your definition was wrong. Never
>said I was making any claims about an outcome.
Equivocation. If my definition was right then the one you were
supporting was wrong or you are just blowing hot air.
>Most of what you're railing against and your attitude is a delusion.
Well I do think you are delusion judging by your actions.
> It's
>just a product of you not paying attention and making stuff up.
No. It is you who made up a project and an OS and "some knowledge" you
can not substantiate
> And it
>wouldn't be the first time a Zen Buddhist made some ego look a prick.
I agree but how did you know I was a Zen Buddhist?
Charles E Hardwidge
> In message <5RbMm.5702$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Charles E
> Hardwidge <bo...@invalid.invalid> writes
>> And it wouldn't be the first time a Zen Buddhist made some ego look a
>> prick.
>
> I agree but how did you know I was a Zen Buddhist?
You don't have a fucking clue about Zen.
--
Charles E Hardwidge