make a program bootable

[Daok]

How can I make a Console program bootable ?

I searched in the Net and I found nothing, I want to make a program and to put it on a floppy then restar the computer with the floppy disk and I want the program load instead of loading in Windows... is that possible? I think yes cause old Dos game was bootable... any information about how to do it ?

[GuitarMan]

Thats pretty easy, just make a Bootup disk then edit the autoexec.bat on the disk and put a yourexename.exe line at the end of it. Just make sure your program is for real mode dos (16 bit) and now a console application (i.e. those made in VC++).

[CyberCarsten]

I think he wants to make in his own "os" or similar.
This recuires assembly programming and is a bit tricky...

[markman]

pscode has a contest winner under c/c++ about making your own OS

[markman]

Originally posted by GuitarMan
Just make sure your program is for real mode dos (16 bit) and now a console application (i.e. those made in VC++).

how would that be done?

[Wynd]

Use a 16-bit compiler. I think older versions of Turbo-C++ are 16-bit.

[Daok]

Problem is that I am on Win2k and it doesn't have a BootDisk...well I do not want the boot disk who take 4 diskette!

[CornedBee]

Maybe you have a friend with win9x

[Daok]

You want to be my friend ?

[parksie]

You don't need DOS to make it bootable.

In fact, you're better off without it - you can write pure 32-bit code for a 32-bit processor

[Daok]

In fact, you're better off without it - you can write pure 32-bit code for a 32-bit processor

hummm I am not enough good in ASM to do that and my goal was only to be able to launch a program just by booting the computer.

[markman]

Originally posted by MasterDaok
Problem is that I am on Win2k and it doesn't have a BootDisk...well I do not want the boot disk who take 4 diskette!

www.bootdisk.com

[CornedBee]

I "could" write a bootstrap (rather paste and copy) that switches to 32-bit, loads a binary file and transfers control there - that would mean you can write a game that uses direct hardware access and such things without any OS support (not even HDD access), this is very hard but needs no assembly knowledge on your side - only good system programming with C...

But I'm too busy, sorry.

Why do you want your app bootable?

[Daok]

Because I want to be able just to put a program on a disket and be able to use it just by opening the computer

[parksie]

What sort of program are you making? For all but some very trivial ones you normally need the OS support.

[Daok]

I remember when I was young that I played old ugly game byt booting on a disket and I just want to be able to do the same, nothing speacial in mind, I just want to be able to do what old programme did 15 years ago.

[jayantkumble]

1) get a dos or win9x bootable disk
2) convert ur program (16-bit dos program .EXE) to binary using some converter which u can search on the net for.
3) copy ur binary file to the disk and rename it to io.sys

if u which to use ur .EXE file then search for XOSL at google, download the code and see how to load a .EXE file ( i guess it is in 32-bit mode) at boot time. But here u will have to write an asm code(u will have to assemble it to a binary file) to load ur .EXE and dump it(not the .EXE) on the boot sector of ur floppy disk.

[GuitarMan]

That was a joke post, right?? If he wants to make a simple bootable program he just needs to put a reference to the exe file in the autoexec.bat file on a normal Win 9x bootdisk.

[Daok]

It's not a joke, I am on Win2kPro and I cannot make a disk like Win9x. If you have nothing constructif to tell just shhhh,

sincerely DAOK

[GuitarMan]

Hey that was almost nasty, i wasn't talking to you i was talking to jayantkumble who's post doesn't make any sence what-so-ever. If you want to make your program bootable without using DOS then i can give you some information on writing a bootsector which will allow you to do this, however it will involve using assembly.

[Daok]

Sorry

But I thought that you were talking to me with the "he" on your message. I have to be "bitches" so I got a little angry, sorry

[CornedBee]

15 years ago you used an Amiga or C64, they were designed for apps that boot from disk.
For modern PCs, if you don't have OS support you either need to have device drivers for every graphics card, sound card and input device you support, or use the lowest common denominator: 320x240@16 colors, no sound, only keyboard, maybe mouse.
The problem is that unlike in DOS times, a reference on how to address devices is not as easily available now. Only the driver programmers need to know about it, the rest is handled by the OS.

[markman]

As I said before, goto pscode.com in the c/c++ section and search for operating system there are two good ones. One is a contest winner that shows you how to do a helloworld, then theres also one that does that, then also loads a C proggy, teaches you about cpu modes and such. Get the second one. You could use c++, but its more difficult, and you cant use things like new and delete unless you spend a few more weeks making a bootloader.

Also, as I said before, goto www.bootdisk.com to get a win98se bootdisk (thoise are the best from my experience)

[parksie]

Originally posted by markman
You could use c++, but its more difficult, and you cant use things like new and delete unless you spend a few more weeks making a bootloader.

Surely new and delete are just memory allocation things similar to malloc and free? You can write them in about 10 lines...

[markman]

Im acutally in the middle of a mini operating system, and the word is to stay away from new and delete

[markman]

I just found this:
http://www.osdev.org/developers/guide01/index.html

I wish I found that before I started building mine...

[Daok]

Before making an OS I prefer be more confortable in C++ and maybe know more thing in assembly. And... I think it's better making is own compiler before start a OS... I think.

[GuitarMan]

When programming an OS you are more likely to use straight C rather than C++ as it is closer to the hardware and IO functions are easier than streams (some might say better!).

[parksie]

Umm, no

The thing with the C++ streams is that they all have the same interface; for example, you make a function taking an istream, and it can read from a file stream, the user input, or a string. C has to use different functions to do this (actually so does C++ but it's compiler magic ).

I agree with using C though, C++'s extra compiler-generated code has no place when you're strapped for space and need to know *exactly* what is being run.

[pskyboy]

I must say i disagree i to am working on my own OS at the moment and just wanted to raise a few points which are as much questions to check what i know is right as they are statments so don't take them the wrong way.

From how i understood it new and delete use malloc and free and just encapsulate it so its easier to read in C++ and anyway this shouldn't be a problem if u use somehthing like gpp.

As for the c c++ for os thing yes c is slighly smaller but c++ allows object oriented design which i don't knwo about u but is highly important for me in my OS and as for speed a good optimising compiler and a bit of hand optimisation shoudl mean there should be little speed difference

Peter

[CornedBee]

But if you're thinking about writing your own compiler for your OS (or at least linker if you have a special executable format) you're likely to go for plain C first, as a C++ compiler is far more difficult to write.

[Daok]

I need to know assembly for the linker, well that's not really my plan