[RESOLVED] create 64 bit system with assembly

it is possible to create a mini system just like msdos and very simple even without exe reading without anything just a prompt with configured commands that is 64bits in assembly not just to read or use but like the current windows, example windows 3.11 it was 32bits read and write 16 I want to create a micro system like 64x architecture and read this is possible with assembly any documents?

Yes you need to initialize your code and tell the BIOS that this is the boot sector. After that, sky is the limit. But afterwards and to start building you kernel I believe if you are not highly familiar with assembly it would be better to continue the OS using C or C++ .
Here is something to get you started (read mostly the os-dev.pdf and then the other schemas).

https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~exr/lectu...0_11/lectures/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapator

Yes you need to initialize your code and tell the BIOS that this is the boot sector. After that, sky is the limit. But afterwards and to start building you kernel I believe if you are not highly familiar with assembly it would be better to continue the OS using C or C++ .
Here is something to get you started (read mostly the os-dev.pdf and then the other schemas).

https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~exr/lectu...0_11/lectures/

---

and how exactly can I define that my OS is a 64x architecture and not 32x or 16x, 8x bits because I want even a simple program in console mode to be 64x with or without a graphical interface.

as an example i will give you if i install on windows 3.11 a 32 bit program it cannot be run because windows 3.11 is (16x) and on modern systems app 64x do not run on (86x) basically i want everything in console mode to use a generic always setting my system with 64x even in console mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

and how exactly can I define that my OS is a 64x architecture and not 32x or 16x, 8x bits because I want even a simple program in console mode to be 64x with or without a graphical interface.

as an example i will give you if i install on windows 3.11 a 32 bit program it cannot be run because windows 3.11 is (16x) and on modern systems app 64x do not run on (86x) basically i want everything in console mode to use a generic always setting my system with 64x even in console mode.

---

i find it but i not know about, is the C compiler that define 64x ?
https://wiki.osdev.org/Creating_a_64-bit_kernel

If I am not mistaken the assembly will execute on 16 bit , from there forth the Kernel will be what you told it to be but since I never used 64bit on C let alone trying to write a bootstrap I'm not 100% sure how you do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

it is possible to create a mini system just like msdos and very simple even without exe reading without anything just a prompt with configured commands that is 64bits in assembly not just to read or use but like the current windows, example windows 3.11 it was 32bits read and write 16 I want to create a micro system like 64x architecture and read this is possible with assembly any documents?

---

https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~exr/lectu...res/os-dev.pdf
Same link as above :eek2:

Quote:

---

and how exactly can I define that my OS is a 64x architecture and not 32x or 16x

---

When the BIOS transfers control to your boot sector, the Intel (or equivalent) cpu is in 16 bit real mode(aka 8086). If you want 32 bit or 64 bit you need to use instructions to switch to 32 or 64 bit protected mode as required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

and how exactly can I define that my OS is a 64x architecture and not 32x or 16x, 8x bits because I want even a simple program in console mode to be 64x with or without a graphical interface.

as an example i will give you if i install on windows 3.11 a 32 bit program it cannot be run because windows 3.11 is (16x) and on modern systems app 64x do not run on (86x) basically i want everything in console mode to use a generic always setting my system with 64x even in console mode.

---

https://gist.github.com/dvliman/267b66ac3a321172fd35 might be worth a look if you are seriously considering creating your own OS - it describes the linux boot process from power on to booting an OS.

Out of interest is there a reason for you wanting to do this or is it just to learn how to do it?

I have tried making a mini OS too. Writing something small in assembly language that can be executed from a boot sector probably isn't that hard. But writing a full blown OS is something else entirely. I assume you don't actually want to seriously write a proper OS but are more interested in how an OS works, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Swinkels

I have tried making a mini OS too. Writing something small in assembly language that can be executed from a boot sector probably isn't that hard. But writing a full blown OS is something else entirely. I assume you don't actually want to seriously write a proper OS but are more interested in how an OS works, correct?

---

yes i want to know how they work because i didn't want a 16bit or 8 console system i want something that uses all mathematical power being more precise and quick making it start processing very fast despite my idea being just a small shell like MSdos and the Linux terminal i would like to to be able to access all memory and processor routes even on a black console screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

yes i want to know how they work because i didn't want a 16bit or 8 console system i want something that uses all mathematical power being more precise and quick making it start processing very fast despite my idea being just a small shell like MSdos and the Linux terminal i would like to to be able to access all memory and processor routes even on a black console screen.

---

If all you are after is a simple shell have you not considered something like https://alpinelinux.org/downloads/ as it is a pretty minimal linux install - hardly any overheads; got to be easier than writing your own 64bit OS....

You probably want to investigate how Linux works then: https://www.linuxjournal.com/content...ibution-source.

@PlausiblyDamp - You beat me by seconds!

Please use some punctuation.
You want to write your own OS because you want to access all memory and processes??
And use all mathematical power, I assume you mean CPU power and possible cores and threads?

Why not use Linux without the graphic shell?
And what kind of application do you want to write which needs it’s own specialized OS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnoutdv

Please use some punctuation.
You want to write your own OS because you want to access all memory and processes??
And use all mathematical power, I assume you mean CPU power and possible cores and threads?

Why not use Linux without the graphic shell?
And what kind of application do you want to write which needs it’s own specialized OS?

---

I am wanting to create a new class of operating systems where they are 64x by nature even in text mode but unlimited programs basically I want the concept of DOS simple navigation but high power of calculations like linux on modern pc with higher performance where in this system each user creates a gui for your program but there will be basic libraries in it that will help the creation of programs with gui. But is there any linux 64x on the console and some way to change the form of linux commands?

In addition to normal things, it will be a system focused on video audios science calculation programs and I will make several small chemical physics calculation apps with these imported api.

I thought about starting with Emu8086 assembly simulator but that program uses DOS calls probably everything in it is made for MSDOS so it is no more than 16x worth since it would be incredible to be able to develop and test it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnoutdv

Please use some punctuation.
You want to write your own OS because you want to access all memory and processes??
And use all mathematical power, I assume you mean CPU power and possible cores and threads?

Why not use Linux without the graphic shell?
And what kind of application do you want to write which needs it’s own specialized OS?

---

I had a brilliant idea to multiply the 8 bits of the simple assembly always so that it is 64x example each app will be the architecture that the programmer defines within that example system:

basically tell the computer how many cycles will be multiplied but I don't know how this is possible in assembly.

Another great idea is to make each function of the operating system, isolated example instead of complete programs just calling the color bin files of text local spaces and functions that will make it easy to develop some programs with basic gui in text mode. now advanced gui require more the idea of separating functions it is easy to import and program instead of each program having to define everything again just call.

But it doesn't solve the problem of 64x architectures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp

If all you are after is a simple shell have you not considered something like https://alpinelinux.org/downloads/ as it is a pretty minimal linux install - hardly any overheads; got to be easier than writing your own 64bit OS....

---

interesting, thanks i'll give it a read but my focus is on something more closed with simpler commands the idea of linux many users are unable to use myself despite using linux and working with it i prefer windows for practicality. but my personal computer is linux

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2kaud

When the BIOS transfers control to your boot sector, the Intel (or equivalent) cpu is in 16 bit real mode(aka 8086). If you want 32 bit or 64 bit you need to use instructions to switch to 32 or 64 bit protected mode as required.

---

is it possible to do this in assembly or is it necessary C?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

interesting, thanks i'll give it a read but my focus is on something more closed with simpler commands the idea of linux many users are unable to use myself despite using linux and working with it i prefer windows for practicality. but my personal computer is linux

---

You are mistaken the shell you are using for the operating system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

is it possible to do this in assembly or is it necessary C?

---

If you had read the document given in the first reply you wouldn’t ask this question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

interesting, thanks i'll give it a read but my focus is on something more closed with simpler commands the idea of linux many users are unable to use myself despite using linux and working with it i prefer windows for practicality. but my personal computer is linux

---

If you are writing your own OS then it wouldn't be Windows either, I think it would help if you really defined what you are trying to achieve - I can't think of many sane reasons to write your own OS as a first step in solving a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

I am wanting to create a new class of operating systems where they are 64x by nature even in text mode but unlimited programs basically I want the concept of DOS simple navigation but high power of calculations like linux on modern pc with higher performance where in this system each user creates a gui for your program but there will be basic libraries in it that will help the creation of programs with gui. But is there any linux 64x on the console and some way to change the form of linux commands?

In addition to normal things, it will be a system focused on video audios science calculation programs and I will make several small chemical physics calculation apps with these imported api.

I thought about starting with Emu8086 assembly simulator but that program uses DOS calls probably everything in it is made for MSDOS so it is no more than 16x worth since it would be incredible to be able to develop and test it.

---

Video mode has nothing to do with processor mode. And, wanting to make a tiny OS to learn a few things is one thing, but judging from this post you either have an entire development team behind you, or you have bitten off more than you can chew. You also give off the impression you feel existing OS’s are somehow not taking advantage of system resources or aren’t customizable enough. Try any Linux distro regarding the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Swinkels

Video mode has nothing to do with processor mode. And, wanting to make a tiny OS to learn a few things is one thing, but judging from this post you either have an entire development team behind you, or you have bitten off more than you can chew. You also give off the impression you feel existing OS’s are somehow not taking advantage of system resources or aren’t customizable enough. Try any Linux distro regarding the latter.

---

I'll make it clear then, the goal of colors is just to customize, my system is not to be a msdos it is just to have similarity but to use all the ways of communication thus being 64x. Now go to the other answers basically the current systems are not the best in calculations there are quantum computers and other architectures so the idea is to create a simple 64x console system in assembly that is focused on calculations example calculating PI using more power because it takes up less memory and uses everything from the computer each program being able to use its guide and color. as it was in msdos i used msdos as an example of color customization and definition only. now the big question is a small system like this doing it in 64x achieving good and fast results because it will not go through many layers of processing and does not call many dependencies being ideal for this function just calculations directly on the machine.

I would be better of using what suggested for small Linux system, after that you can code in assembly to do your fast calculations.
If you think Linux is difficult to use then fine, just write a sub program put it on the desktop and when clicked it will open a program in assembly that will have commands to do whatever you want it to do.
Unless you are for some reason determined to build your own OS. In that case, can you show us what have you tried so far?
How are you booting your system up and what have you tried to push it to 64bit?
Can you also saw any assembly code for the calculations you intent to do? Should be interesting.

Why do you think that writing a new OS can give you more speed and memory?
The CPU does the calculations not the OS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnoutdv

Why do you think that writing a new OS can give you more speed and memory?
The CPU does the calculations not the OS.

---

because the system will occupy less space and resources using the maximum with the minimum giving the rest of the access for calculation programs.

Sorry but that shows complete ignorance.

But have a look at real-time OSes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-t...erating_system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

because the system will occupy less space and resources using the maximum with the minimum giving the rest of the access for calculation programs.

---

That is assuming you are able to write a complete OS and everything it requires and do so more efficiently than any existing OS. That seems far more effort than simply using a lightweight OS that already exists.

before you spend massive amounts of time writing your own OS, first consider free alternative os's available:

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/free-a...ating-systems/

Can we see some effort?
I haven't seen anything to specify a real effort , just theory.

Quote:

---

I'll make it clear then, the goal of colors is just to customize

---

What colors?

Code:

---

, my system is not to be a msdos it is just to have similarity but to use all the ways of communication thus being 64x.

---

So MS-DOS has nothing to do with it, you just want to build an OS with a console-like interface. And again: the CPU mode has nothing to do with the interface.

Code:

---

Now go to the other answers basically the current systems are not the best in calculations

---

There specialized systems for "advanced" calculations. That is when they're really needed. Why would you need to do calculations beyond the capicity offered by the software and hardware available to the regular user?

Code:

---

there are quantum computers and other architectures

---

Unless you have access to a quantum computer I don't see how this is relevant.

Code:

---

so the idea is to create a simple 64x console system in assembly that is focused on calculations example calculating PI

---

PI has already been calculated to a precision no one with access to specialized equipment could ever hope to achieve. Why would you want to do that anyway?

Code:

---

using more power because it takes up less memory and uses everything from the computer each program being able to use its guide and color. as it was in msdos i used msdos as an example of color customization and definition only.

---

Yes, I think this point has been made clear enough. You want a terminal interface.

Code:

---

now the big question is a small system like this doing it in 64x achieving good and fast results because it will not go through many layers of processing and does not call many dependencies being ideal for this function just calculations directly on the machine.

---

I haven't searched for it, but wouldn't there already be specialized software that allows for more direct access to a computer's hardware?

As some other forum users have already asked, what have you done so far? What is your background?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Swinkels

What colors?

Code:

---

, my system is not to be a msdos it is just to have similarity but to use all the ways of communication thus being 64x.

---

So MS-DOS has nothing to do with it, you just want to build an OS with a console-like interface. And again: the CPU mode has nothing to do with the interface.

Code:

---

Now go to the other answers basically the current systems are not the best in calculations

---

There specialized systems for "advanced" calculations. That is when they're really needed. Why would you need to do calculations beyond the capicity offered by the software and hardware available to the regular user?

Code:

---

there are quantum computers and other architectures

---

Unless you have access to a quantum computer I don't see how this is relevant.

Code:

---

so the idea is to create a simple 64x console system in assembly that is focused on calculations example calculating PI

---

PI has already been calculated to a precision no one with access to specialized equipment could ever hope to achieve. Why would you want to do that anyway?

Code:

---

using more power because it takes up less memory and uses everything from the computer each program being able to use its guide and color. as it was in msdos i used msdos as an example of color customization and definition only.

---

Yes, I think this point has been made clear enough. You want a terminal interface.

Code:

---

now the big question is a small system like this doing it in 64x achieving good and fast results because it will not go through many layers of processing and does not call many dependencies being ideal for this function just calculations directly on the machine.

---

I haven't searched for it, but wouldn't there already be specialized software that allows for more direct access to a computer's hardware?

As some other forum users have already asked, what have you done so far? What is your background?

---

Thanks for the quotes, the idea is that the system is modern and capable of doing all tasks and empowering users to calculate anything, being lightweight and a terminal.

My goal is that in addition it is a program execution base in 64x terminal that executes programs by command line so I compared it with MSDOS when I started windows.

Thus, the first and fastest 64x light terminal system that gives all access to memory and CPU through system inputs and variables, making it easy to create very light systems and gui and for day-to-day use performing any task as the OS it would not consume a lot of memory or a Processor but it could access any space from moria, hd, processors and drives for access to generic sound cards.

Basically being a base with support for any gui or system on top giving easy power to users and OS developers.

Disadvantages: Programs would have to be rewritten and new interfaces and reading patterns would have to be created because 64x would be everything by default.

Advantages: Fast at machine level, 96% of the memory available according to my calculations, enormous calculation power, I could even calculate pi with an app just for that, light systems, light programs and greater CPU control and a Shell language like bash and batch to give even more power and add new features.

Basically this would change the way of programming and make everything lighter and faster would say that even a computer with 20 gb of hd 1 gb of memory and the average processor could have current things like the heaviest linux and the slowest windows 10 and a system smaller and lighter.

And you really think you can write a better OS than the modular Linux kernel?
Which also makes the CPU faster?

Okay… :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

Thanks for the quotes, the idea is that the system is modern and capable of doing all tasks and empowering users to calculate anything, being lightweight and a terminal.

My goal is that in addition it is a program execution base in 64x terminal that executes programs by command line so I compared it with MSDOS when I started windows.

Thus, the first and fastest 64x light terminal system that gives all access to memory and CPU through system inputs and variables, making it easy to create very light systems and gui and for day-to-day use performing any task as the OS it would not consume a lot of memory or a Processor but it could access any space from moria, hd, processors and drives for access to generic sound cards.

Basically being a base with support for any gui or system on top giving easy power to users and OS developers.

Disadvantages: Programs would have to be rewritten and new interfaces and reading patterns would have to be created because 64x would be everything by default.

Advantages: Fast at machine level, 96% of the memory available according to my calculations, enormous calculation power, I could even calculate pi with an app just for that, light systems, light programs and greater CPU control and a Shell language like bash and batch to give even more power and add new features.

---

Writing any OS is a massive undertaking, even a simple OS is a considerable amount of effort and your plans (or at least what I think they are) seems very ambitious "support for any gui" would be especially hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

Basically this would change the way of programming and make everything lighter and faster would say that even a computer with 20 gb of hd 1 gb of memory and the average processor could have current things like the heaviest linux and the slowest windows 10 and a system smaller and lighter.

---

There is absolutely no point in a 64bit OS on a system with only 1GB or memory, it would actually be slower than a 32 bit system for that spec of machine!

I am honestly not sure why you think you need to do this, have you even considered just using a lightweight linux distro instead? IT has been suggested many times already and you seem to be ignoring that option....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp

Writing any OS is a massive undertaking, even a simple OS is a considerable amount of effort and your plans (or at least what I think they are) seems very ambitious "support for any gui" would be especially hard.




There is absolutely no point in a 64bit OS on a system with only 1GB or memory, it would actually be slower than a 32 bit system for that spec of machine!

I am honestly not sure why you think you need to do this, have you even considered just using a lightweight linux distro instead? IT has been suggested many times already and you seem to be ignoring that option....

---

yes i already thought about unraveling a distribution but the lighter one is very complex to convert the terminal to 64x. it would actually be lighter but more complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

yes i already thought about unraveling a distribution but the lighter one is very complex to convert the terminal to 64x. it would actually be lighter but more complex.

---

That makes no sense at all, if you are using a 64bit version of linux then it is 64 bit. There would be nothing to convert to 64bit. I am assuming by terminal you are talking about the command shell, if you are using a 64bit version of linux that boots to a bash prompt (or similar) rather than a gui then it is a 64 bit command shell - why isn't this good enough for you?

@lewisjames: your last answer is just a rehash of everything you said before. What is your programming background? What makes you think you need a new OS that improves on what is already available and you could write one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PlausiblyDamp

That makes no sense at all, if you are using a 64bit version of linux then it is 64 bit. There would be nothing to convert to 64bit. I am assuming by terminal you are talking about the command shell, if you are using a 64bit version of linux that boots to a bash prompt (or similar) rather than a gui then it is a 64 bit command shell - why isn't this good enough for you?

---

what is certain is that all outputs are 64bits obviously not all can change but most I would like linux was made with patterns so it goes down layers my idea is that it would be literally like this and it is possible from what I saw:

16 bit normal (boot)
64x normal kernerl (x64)


but linux goes through 3 phases:

16-bit start boot
32-bit kernel converting to 64x
64 bits above

there would be no oscillation see now after boot

Linux: 32 converting data to 64

My idea: 64x constant, as it does not go through conversion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Swinkels

@lewisjames: your last answer is just a rehash of everything you said before. What is your programming background? What makes you think you need a new OS that improves on what is already available and you could write one?

---

I want to make an open-source system smaller than any other and give power to games and create a new standard of speed for any computer to run the games apps system.

And what is special about this system?

everything will be 3d and the most real looking 4k even in 720p and super light yet making graphics so real that between you looking at a stone and a 3d image in this system you will not notice much difference because it is so light and powerful that it will have the best balance and I intend to create a support ai so fast intelligent and interactive that I think you will only know that you speak to the computer because of the case. will have phrases thousands of phrases and tones and functions and meanings.

where the system is light and its real weight is in graph and predefined and intelligent artificial intelligence and security.
so I need all the routes and 64x

I'm trying to make a time machine. It will be voice activated and in 128bit.

I'd say you are targeting the wrong hardware. If you want to do fast calculations, the first thing I'd ask is whether or not the calculations you want to do can be done on the GPU rather than the CPU. After all, a CPU will have four to eight cores for you to use, while a single graphics card will have a GPU that has FAR more cores than that, perhaps in the thousands, and you can have multiple graphics cards. The drawback of the GPU would be that the instruction set is reduced, so it is ideal for certain math, but not for general processing. If your problem fits in the instruction set of the GPU, then forget about the OS, it just has to be something that allows you to work with the GPU directly...which means pretty nearly any OS, as far as I know.

But don't you get it?
He want to make an OS, whatever you propose the OS will be made. With no examples and not shown progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

I want to make an open-source system smaller than any other and give power to games and create a new standard of speed for any computer to run the games apps system.

And what is special about this system?

everything will be 3d and the most real looking 4k even in 720p and super light yet making graphics so real that between you looking at a stone and a 3d image in this system you will not notice much difference because it is so light and powerful that it will have the best balance and I intend to create a support ai so fast intelligent and interactive that I think you will only know that you speak to the computer because of the case. will have phrases thousands of phrases and tones and functions and meanings.

where the system is light and its real weight is in graph and predefined and intelligent artificial intelligence and security.
so I need all the routes and 64x

---

Now your OS is also by design going to be more sophisticated then the new upcoming Unreal 5 engine.

You must be trolling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

what is certain is that all outputs are 64bits obviously not all can change but most I would like linux was made with patterns so it goes down layers my idea is that it would be literally like this and it is possible from what I saw:

16 bit normal (boot)
64x normal kernerl (x64)


but linux goes through 3 phases:

16-bit start boot
32-bit kernel converting to 64x
64 bits above

there would be no oscillation see now after boot

Linux: 32 converting data to 64

My idea: 64x constant, as it does not go through conversion

---

The boot process doesn't change the fact the OS is still fully 64 bits, once it has booted it is no longer using any 16 or 32 bit code - that is simply part of getting the OS loaded and running due to hardware restrictions.There is no 32 to 64 bit conversions once the OS is loaded.

If you walk to your car that doesn't then mean your car is converting between driving and walking, walking is the same as the boot process - it is a means to an end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

I want to make an open-source system smaller than any other and give power to games and create a new standard of speed for any computer to run the games apps system.

And what is special about this system?

everything will be 3d and the most real looking 4k even in 720p and super light yet making graphics so real that between you looking at a stone and a 3d image in this system you will not notice much difference because it is so light and powerful that it will have the best balance and

---

That level of graphical quality will have nothing to do with the OS and everything to do with the graphics card and related subsystem. You are now considering an OS that is just a terminal(??) and also a gui (might be easier to pick one or the other) and will have 3d support to rival a modern game engine. Are you capable of writing the low level graphics support for all modern NVidia and AMD cards? Are you such a good salesman you can convince both of those companies to develop drivers for your custom OS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiwisJames

I intend to create a support ai so fast intelligent and interactive that I think you will only know that you speak to the computer because of the case. will have phrases thousands of phrases and tones and functions and meanings.

where the system is light and its real weight is in graph and predefined and intelligent artificial intelligence and security.
so I need all the routes and 64x

---

So you are also going to include a full Deep Learning language model as well? Nothing like being ambitious...

I suppose the first real questions are.... Have you ever written any assembler code before? Have you ever even attempted to write anything that could be compared to an OS or even just created your own custom boot loader?

It sounds like he wants to create a "monitor" rather than an OS as such.

That's similar to what you find in a game console or old 8-bit computer or even some microcontrollers. Actually MS-DOS wasn't really much more. Win9x was basically MS-DOS with other stuff layered on top to support a GUI and pre-emptive multitasking.

I'm not aware of any robust and viable DOS-clone that is 64-bit, but he seems to want more than that anyway.

I think he's back to something like a thin Linux distro. I think nearly all cryptocurrency mining systems use that as well, though some might be using one of the 64-bit real-time OSs.

But yeah. Creating something from dirt is a massive task, even starting from a naked Linux Kernel let alone doing it all. Software support for video, disk, networking, etc. adapters are all each massive chores in themselves.

I'd have to rank this project: Not Serious.