This project is read-only.

Screen Size

Mar 15, 2011 at 8:37 PM

iF I WANT A NEW SCREEN SIZE WOULD IT BE BEST TO USE asm OR COSMOS?

Mar 15, 2011 at 9:42 PM
marblessoftware wrote:

iF I WANT A NEW SCREEN SIZE WOULD IT BE BEST TO USE asm OR COSMOS?

I'm not too involved with the project here, but the resolution of the screen is constant isn't it? The dimensions of the default are 80 / 25. I don't think you can change the screen of the console, if its a GUI then its just your preference, but the console I think, is non-changeable.

Mar 16, 2011 at 8:42 AM
Not really: there are other, non-standard resolutions, but we need VGA support for that, to switch modes. Currently, the focus is on getting some known issues our of the compiler, and get FAT support working...



On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:42 PM, xaphan32 <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: xaphan32

marblessoftware wrote:

iF I WANT A NEW SCREEN SIZE WOULD IT BE BEST TO USE asm OR COSMOS?

I'm not too involved with the project here, but the resolution of the screen is constant isn't it? The dimensions of the default are 80 / 25. I don't think you can change the screen of the console, if its a GUI then its just your preference, but the console I think, is non-changeable.

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com


Mar 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM

I see. On the note of FAT support, running a live CD OS would probably be easier, you could implement the ISO 9660, which is the standard for CD-RW, its also a bit simpler than FAT. I had problems with formatting a CD-RW with FAT (I couldn't at all, stupid write protection). Also, sorry about that stuff I said on my other post, I had one hell of a bad day.

Mar 16, 2011 at 11:42 PM
> I see. On the note of FAT support, running a live CD OS would probably
> be easier, you could implement the ISO 9660, which is the standard for
> CD-RW, its also a bit simpler than FAT. I had problems with formatting a
> CD-RW with FAT (I couldn't at all, stupid write protection). Also, sorry
> about that stuff I said on my other post, I had one hell of a bad day.

We already have FAT working, the issue now are plugs and other bugs we
found while implementing it.
Mar 17, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Such as? Perhaps I may be able to help you.

Mar 17, 2011 at 9:03 AM
Booting from CD isn't a problem at all, Syslinux (our bootloader) takes care of that..

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:23 AM, xaphan32 <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: xaphan32

Such as? Perhaps I may be able to help you.

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com


Mar 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

No, kudzu said something about having bugs with the FAT thats what I was talking about. I'm sure booting isn't a problem, but I was suggesting that the ISO 9660 would probably be easier on you since you guys have done so much already (I'm currently working on a driver for ISO 9960 in my C++ OS).

Mar 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM
FAT isn't that hard actually..

Current problems are mostly around our string implementation (we have a certain difference between .NET/Mono, and we recently discovered that needs to be changed). Furthermore, most stuff should be working..


On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM, xaphan32 <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: xaphan32

No, kudzu said something about having bugs with the FAT thats what I was talking about. I'm sure booting isn't a problem, but I was suggesting that the ISO 9660 would probably be easier on you since you guys have done so much already (I'm currently working on a driver for ISO 9960 in my C++ OS).

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email Cosmos@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com


Mar 17, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Yeah, strings are a pain, cross platform is even worse. I never even knew it was ported it for mono, I'm glad you guys have been able to get everything else working, really solid project here.

Mar 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM
> No, kudzu said something about having bugs with the FAT thats what I was
> talking about. I'm sure booting isn't a problem, but I was suggesting
> that the ISO 9660 would probably be easier on you since you guys have
> done so much already (I'm currently working on a driver for ISO 9960 in
> my C++ OS).

The bugs arent in FAT, they are bugs in Cosmos copmiler uncovered while
working on FAT and blocking us until we resolve them.