X86:MBR page modification

[Mr.Confuzed]

Wow, I certainly got reactions to that one.

Brynet-Inc:
VC++ seems complicated to a n00b like me, but I'm not sure about pathetic. I'm not totally fond of Microsoft either. I'm even considering trying out Ubuntu ever since I was subjected to a demonstration from a fanatical friend of mine; however, I'm afraid most of my computer knowledge has been limited to Windows. As for my OS, it is certainly not great. FYI, all it does at the moment is load the next sector on the floppy drive and let you type on the text mode screen using half of the regular typing characters. Impressive, eh? After a few months of temporary abandonment, I finally managed to load the next sector from the floppy. This is completely the fault of the X86:MBR page of the wiki, for which I extend my thanks. Brynet-Inc, please resist the temptation to reply to this. (how's that for tact? anyone wanna place bets?)

Now for the rest of you:

How hard will it be to shift your OS from NASM to VC++ in the near future (step A), how much time will developing in VC++ save you (step B), and how much time will it take you to port VC++ to your OS in the distant future (step C)?

step A:
That should be easy due to the size of my OS.
step B:
I really don't know. A good programmer I know insinuated that I should give up rather than try to write an OS with assembly. I figured it was a good point so I thought VC++ could be useful.
step C:
At the moment, I'm not planning on porting VC++ to my OS. Yes, my OS is for educational purposes and with a ton of time and luck might produce some desirable features. I thought I might be able to include source code with the OS for the integrated development environment.

Some form of C ought to speed up development. I was going to use VC++ to avoid the use of linkers, but I'm not so sure about that anymore.

By switching from NASM to VC++, I actually did mean that I was going to change the format of the code as part of my VS project. I was not aware there was another way of doing things.

Yup, I was doing it because it sounded easy at the time. I'm not sure it will be. If you guys are willing to suggest a better method, I'm all eyes. Due to the nice features of Ubuntu, I might just try to mod it instead of starting from scratch.

Hopefully, I didn't miss anything in this post. As much as I love the attention, this thread should really get back to its intended topic. (Nudge, nudge)

[TheQuux]

Wow, I certainly got reactions to that one.

Brynet-Inc:
VC++ seems complicated to a n00b like me, but I'm not sure about pathetic. I'm not totally fond of Microsoft either. I'm even considering trying out Ubuntu ever since I was subjected to a demonstration from a fanatical friend of mine; however, I'm afraid most of my computer knowledge has been limited to Windows. As for my OS, it is certainly not great. FYI, all it does at the moment is load the next sector on the floppy drive and let you type on the text mode screen using half of the regular typing characters. Impressive, eh?

That's where my OS is...

After a few months of temporary abandonment, I finally managed to load the next sector from the floppy. This is completely the fault of the X86:MBR page of the wiki, for which I extend my thanks. Brynet-Inc, please resist the temptation to reply to this. (how's that for tact? anyone wanna place bets?)

Now for the rest of you:

How hard will it be to shift your OS from NASM to VC++ in the near future (step A), how much time will developing in VC++ save you (step B), and how much time will it take you to port VC++ to your OS in the distant future (step C)?

step A:
That should be easy due to the size of my OS.
step B:
I really don't know. A good programmer I know insinuated that I should give up rather than try to write an OS with assembly. I figured it was a good point so I thought VC++ could be useful.

Several OS's have been written in assembly...including Dex, which is incredibly cool. Mine is mostly C, though...

step C:
At the moment, I'm not planning on porting VC++ to my OS. Yes, my OS is for educational purposes and with a ton of time and luck might produce some desirable features. I thought I might be able to include source code with the OS for the integrated development environment.

Some form of C ought to speed up development. I was going to use VC++ to avoid the use of linkers, but I'm not so sure about that anymore.

Even VC++ uses a linker... you just have less control over it (AFAIK)

By switching from NASM to VC++, I actually did mean that I was going to change the format of the code as part of my VS project. I was not aware there was another way of doing things.

Yup, I was doing it because it sounded easy at the time. I'm not sure it will be. If you guys are willing to suggest a better method, I'm all eyes. Due to the nice features of Ubuntu, I might just try to mod it instead of starting from scratch.

Well, it'll probably be difficult to get your OS completely written in C/C++. I realize that that's probably not what you mean, but, unless thats your goal, I'd just write the new stuff in C, and leave the tested ASM in there, or just rewrite is as you get around to it.