Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ronanism · Apr 30, 2006, 07:12 PM

Hi I am stuck on these questions any help would be appreiated:

Why does an application program need an operating system

and

Why is compatibility needed between operating system software and application software

Thank you for your time

PurpleGiant · Apr 30, 2006, 07:14 PM

Computing 101, Assignment #1, questions one and two hey?

turtle777 · Apr 30, 2006, 07:16 PM

A classic troll. Gotta love it.

IBL.

-t

ronanism · Apr 30, 2006, 07:17 PM

Yep, I need questions one and two I think I have the rest sussed

Ganesha · Apr 30, 2006, 07:17 PM

1. It doesn't.

2. It doesn't.

ronanism · Apr 30, 2006, 07:19 PM

What would the ethical answer be cuz the system seems to think it definitly does

rickey939 · Apr 30, 2006, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Billy G

What would the ethical answer be cuz the system seems to think it definitly does

The answer is on the back side of the paper or under the desk.

awaspaas · Apr 30, 2006, 08:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

Tuoder · Apr 30, 2006, 08:57 PM

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing.

brassplayersrock² · Apr 30, 2006, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tuoder

Wikipedia is a wonderful thing.

wdlove?

besson3c · Apr 30, 2006, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Billy G

Hi I am stuck on these questions any help would be appreiated:

Why does an application program need an operating system

and

Why is compatibility needed between operating system software and application software

Thank you for your time

What happened to your question marks

awaspaas · May 1, 2006, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

wdlove?

I miss wdlove.

FireWire · May 1, 2006, 01:14 AM

Welcome to MacNN, helpful as always...

Come on, these are interesting questions, that would benefit being answered. We all know he "basic" answer, but it would be interesting to have an expert's opition on this, or even a philosophical theory on the question. (Do we really need an OS? Is that because programmers are lazy? Learn binary of assembly? Pffff no way!) I think we are becoming more and more dependant on high-level API, and programmers are becoming less and less competent and original. They take for granted that the speed of today's machine will make up for the inefficient code produced (often rightly so) but...

Chuckit · May 1, 2006, 01:44 AM

Few (if any) modern operating systems are written in assembly. They're written in C or C++, just like most applications. An operating system's primary function is to provide an interface to the underlying hardware. Otherwise, every program would have to include its own drivers for any part of your system the developer wanted to work while it was running and you would only be able to run one program at a time.

As for becoming "dependent on high-level API," that's kind of a fuzzy topic (is anything above the kernel "high-level"?), but I suspect you use many applications written with these high-level APIs, so it seems to me that they must produce some pretty good products.

FireWire · May 1, 2006, 02:51 AM

I totally agree with what you said. It would be impractical to develop applications (let alone a whole OS) in assembly. It would be back to many decades ago. However, it would be possible to avoid using an OS, as embedded application demonstrated: they talk directly to the hardware.

Of couse, I wasn't questionning the quality of modern apps that make use of high-level API. After all, if you make good use of Tiger's API such as CoreData, CoreImage and Quartz, you can produce amazing software that look good and work great. However, as you have everything "pre-cooked", your quality (or merit) as a programmer is greatly diminished. As someone who uses AppleScript Studio can make a really good product, but is probably less qualified than someone writing his apps in Cocoa, all by hand.

I was just throwing a few bones to prove that the OP had valid questions that should not deserve this kind of treatment.. Troll? IBL?? WTF!!

CharlesS · May 1, 2006, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by FireWire

Of couse, I wasn't questionning the quality of modern apps that make use of high-level API. After all, if you make good use of Tiger's API such as CoreData, CoreImage and Quartz, you can produce amazing software that look good and work great. However, as you have everything "pre-cooked", your quality (or merit) as a programmer is greatly diminished. As someone who uses AppleScript Studio can make a really good product, but is probably less qualified than someone writing his apps in Cocoa, all by hand.

Cocoa is a pretty high-level API itself, you know. It includes a hell of a lot of "pre-cooked" functionality. Go build that 15-minute text editor example sometime. You'll be astonished at how much Cocoa does for you. A Cocoa app is far from being written all by hand.

Not that that's a bad thing. Why, really, should programmers waste their time doing busywork that could be handled just as well, or better, by a high-level API like Cocoa? If programmers don't have to spend extra time doing menial labor to implement things that work exactly the same way in every single app anyway, they can put more effort into refining the application itself and making a better product. The other nice thing about all the "pre-cooked" stuff is that it can give a lot of extra functionality for free that end-users appreciate (such as the spell checker).

©öñFü$íóÑ · May 1, 2006, 04:27 AM

CharlesS hit the nail right on the head.

In fact, this is one of the things i'm learning in my Operations Management class (Business Admin.)..... deciding whether to 'crash' a project (buying ready-made materials to save time) or just make everything ourselves from scratch.

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Why, really, should programmers waste their time doing busywork that could be handled just as well, or better, by a high-level API like Cocoa? If programmers don't have to spend extra time doing menial labor to implement things that work exactly the same way in every single app anyway, they can put more effort into refining the application itself and making a better product. The other nice thing about all the "pre-cooked" stuff is that it can give a lot of extra functionality for free that end-users appreciate (such as the spell checker).

turtle777 · May 1, 2006, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by ©öñFü$íóÑ

CharlesS hit the nail right on the head.

LOL. Somehow, the kerning here is confusing

-t

Eriamjh · May 1, 2006, 11:33 AM

Imagine if the computer just booted into the application... Granted, you couldn't switch apps, but it would be great for games.

Like through Boot Camp, for example.

Half Life 2 without Windows XP, anyone?

waxcrash · May 1, 2006, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

LOL. Somehow, the kerning here is confusing

-t

Yeah, that would hurt if he could sh*t a nail.

Tuoder · May 1, 2006, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Imagine if the computer just booted into the application... Granted, you couldn't switch apps, but it would be great for games.

Like through Boot Camp, for example.

Half Life 2 without Windows XP, anyone?

That would be nice, to just have a bit more RAM and also CPU. You can strip out alot of services and crap if you really only want to play games in XP. You can strip XP down to under 100MB of RAM usage and still have an internet-capable computer.

residentEvil · May 1, 2006, 11:59 AM

Ah yes, I miss the days of assembly. Oh wait, no I don't.

Leopard Employee · May 1, 2006, 02:29 PM

Even using an older OS could give some of the same effects is boot camp backward compatable enough to run win 3.1, I did a little experement with an old 2ghz desk top and win 95 the speed was pretty increadable just no new aps to run uses and pretty small amounts of RAM though

ronanism · May 1, 2006, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by awaspaas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system

i owe u a beer

Big Mac · May 1, 2006, 08:02 PM

Are you sure you're old enough to buy one?