That's true, but it's POSSIBLE to write an OS (or at least your C libraries) well enough that they can "fake" a 32 bit environment. Certain expensive 3rd part cross-compilers do stuff like that. The real issue is that the function calls are WAY to small a subset to be useful. The carn thing can't even run antique old 2BSD "vi"...

Quote:

Whoa? Symbiface III is going to have an MSX version? Sweet. Given that Sunrise seems to have stopped making MSX hardware, symbiface just might find a new market... Anyway, Uzix is NOT really POSIX compliant any more than SymbOS is Win32 compliant...

Seems people tries to tell lies to rest of the world . lOOK People seems to think we are a commercial company like you !!
But you have to wait , we sell still a lot of cf's AND THERE IS HARDLY MONEY FOR DOING MORE

Quote:

we sell still a lot of cf's AND THERE IS HARDLY MONEY FOR DOING MORE

w00t? o_O

madcrow: this page tells us amongst others:

Quote:

UZIX implements almost all of the 7th Edition AT&T UNIX functionality. All file I/O, directories, mountable file systems, user and group IDs, pipes, and applicable device I/O are supported. Process control (fork(), execve(), signal(), kill(), pause(), alarm(), and wait()) are fully supported. The number of processes is limited only by the swap space available, with a maximum of 252 processes (total of 4096k memory). As mentioned, UZIX implements UNIX well enough to run the Bourne Shell in its full functionality. The only changes made to the shell's source code were to satisfy the limitations of the C compiler.

This makes it a lot more POSIX compliant than SymbOS Win32 compliant... AFAIK SymbOS has no functions similar to Win32 at all. (But it might be possible to map some subset to SymbOS functions, I don't know.)

That's just what I read several years ago. However I don't know the details of POSIX specification, but even if it's not true POSIX, it is very much POSIX-like, much more than SymbOS would be win32.

As I never saw any Win32 api specs and whatever, I guess, that SymbOS is not Win32 compliant at all
Regarding Sunrise, I think that Rob is doing his job (his hobby) in such a good and professional way, that people may get the impression, it is commercial.

Quote:

As I never saw any Win32 api specs and whatever, I guess, that SymbOS is not Win32 compliant at all

I hope you keep that way

Quote:

Regarding Sunrise, I think that Rob is doing his job (his hobby) in such a good and professional way, that people may get the impression, it is commercial.

I totally agree, Sunrise stuff looks absolutely professional.

7th Edition Unix is a FAR cry from POSIX. A program written for 7th Edition Unix probably wouldn't compile for a modern POSIX-ish system and a program written for a POSIX-ish system would almost CERTAINLY not compile on 7th Edition Unix... So "we're close enough to 7th Edition Unix that an old version of the Bourne shell (which is, in and of itself already non-POSIX compliant. ksh and zsh are the only truly compliant shells, though bash comes fairly close...) might compile unmodified if it weren't for the crappy C compiler we use.

I'm not dissing UZIX. It's an impressive acheivement (although until I see it running X11, it's not as good as SymbOS). It's just nowhere CLOSE to POSIX. It's not even V7...

Quote:

I'm not dissing UZIX. It's an impressive acheivement (although until I see it running X11, it's not as good as SymbOS).

X11? Are you dreaming? Pratically impossible on a 8 bit...

Does this mean I should stop trying to port Vista?

madcrow: try the xwind application in UZIX

Quote:

Does this mean I should stop trying to port Vista?

Ahha, finally someone who has the source. Please mail it to me ok

Oh, by the way, a cool Uzix screenshot that I took several years ago performing bogomips and dhrystones in Z80 and R800 mode: