Almost the ultimate QB64 challenge: build a custom desktop environment !

[madscijr]

[edited to use the correct term "desktop environment" instead of "shell", although making a shell could also be part of the challenge]

All this talk of Linux distros had me curious - has anybody ever tried making an operating system in QB64 or QuickBasic? I assume not, as most OSes have to be coded in a low level language like assembly or C that gives sufficient control and speed that other applications can run on top of. And then we have to worry about device drivers and all of that. Probably a non-starter! But that would probably be the ultimate challenge for any language, especially QB64. 

HOWEVER, what about a custom desktop environment that runs on top of an OS? Linux has desktops like Gnome, Microsoft Windows upto version 3.1 and NT4 that ran on top of DOS, etc. I'm curious if anyone has attempted this in QB64? Being that QB64 runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux, it could be an interesting project to make a front end that runs on all 3, making them look and behave identically...

[mnrvovrfc]

https://qb64phoenix.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=73
It's a shame it's not finished, I was interested in this.

"Shell" is a very subjective word these days. For some people it could mean "terminal" (how did you think "SHELL" got its name for M$QB?), and others who are old enough think about the greatest feature of MS-DOS v4.

[madscijr]

https://qb64phoenix.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=73
It's a shame it's not finished, I was interested in this.

"Shell" is a very subjective word these days. For some people it could mean "terminal" (how did you think "SHELL" got its name for M$QB?), and others who are old enough think about the greatest feature of MS-DOS v4.

Wait, what was the greatest feature of MS-DOS v4?? 
I came onto the PC scene towards the end of the Windows 3.1 era, and I think DOS was up to v6? 
BTW I think I meant desktop environment rather than "shell" - a front end interface like Gnome, Mate, KDE, XFCE, Windows 3.1, etc. I'm going to fix the title of this post, thanks for pointing that out!

[mnrvovrfc]

Before v4 of MS-DOS, there was no such thing as a "file manager" (except payware or shareware) which had a GUI like you've known so well with File Explorer on Windows, or Files/Nautilus/whatever-it-wants-to-call-itself-now on GNOME, or my least favorite one on XFCE which is almost named for the god of thunder in Norse mythology.

It's OK to call "shell" whatever is seen most of the time when somebody uses a computer. It took me a long time to realize that "explorer.exe" on WindowsXP was responsible not only for the file manager but for the desktop launchers, task manager and many other things. The thing is that a lot of people took in the phrase "shell to DOS" which is a bit confusing. In my experience, it could involve using Turbo C++, and its having to write a swap file to a RAMDISK so I could use the MS-DOS terminal. I was using this on a Tandy computer with very slow Seagate hard disk in the mid-1990's. I've used other language products especially M$QB v4.5 and didn't run into that issue, so I didn't care a lot about "shell to DOS" just as long as I was able to open that terminal. I almost didn't use "SHELL" statement until 32-bit OS and GUI programming which started becoming necessary to get a list of files into a string array, just one example of some BASIC statements becoming outdated at that point.

[madscijr]

Before v4 of MS-DOS, there was no such thing as a "file manager" (except payware or shareware) which had a GUI like you've known so well with File Explorer on Windows, or Files/Nautilus/whatever-it-wants-to-call-itself-now on GNOME, or my least favorite one on XFCE which is almost named for the god of thunder in Norse mythology.

It's OK to call "shell" whatever is seen most of the time when somebody uses a computer. It took me a long time to realize that "explorer.exe" on WindowsXP was responsible not only for the file manager but for the desktop launchers, task manager and many other things. The thing is that a lot of people took in the phrase "shell to DOS" which is a bit confusing. In my experience, it could involve using Turbo C++, and its having to write a swap file to a RAMDISK so I could use the MS-DOS terminal. I was using this on a Tandy computer with very slow Seagate hard disk in the mid-1990's. I've used other language products especially M$QB v4.5 and didn't run into that issue, so I didn't care a lot about "shell to DOS" just as long as I was able to open that terminal. I almost didn't use "SHELL" statement until 32-bit OS and GUI programming which started becoming necessary to get a list of files into a string array, just one example of some BASIC statements becoming outdated at that point.

Aha, yes a file explorer is something we take for granted. I wasn't sure when MS introduced that, DOS v4 eh? I had run DOS on an old 8088 that I found on the curb in NYC in the 90s (back then it was a goldmine if you were into old PCs!) but I only used it to run Ultima 1 before giving it to a friend. 
Good times!

[vince]

you really are a mad scientist!