Talk:Hardware abstraction layer

Windows has a hybrid kernel (also known as a macrokernel), not a microkernel. Replaced the word "microkernel" with "kernel". Love4Boobies —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

the article states: "BSD, Linux, MS-DOS and the Windows NT based operating systems also have a HAL."

but does MS-DOS really have any HAL?

maybe someone more competent could either fix the article or confirm the existence of the abstraction layer in ms-dos...

regards, Blueshade 12:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, MS-DOS was designed so that io.sys serves as an HAL, which is analgios to the CP/M BIOS, which also serves as an HAL. See Non-PC compatible x86 computers. Yuhong 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

CPM was certainly 'ported' to another architecture (m68k) for atari/ GEM development. I know of no examples of DOS running on other architectures - in fact the use of int 21h and its reliance on CPU registers to pass parameters seems to argue against it. Therefore I would argue that DOS has no HAL (i.e. there is no abstraction present). AFAIK (recall) io.sys is just a wrapper around the standard PC BIOS. I would argue that DOS be removed from this list. Djmwlv 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Read IBM_PC_compatible. Also, usually processor ports require more than just a change in HAL. 65.110.28.195 05:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence about HAL and nanokernels
I've removed the sentence:

"Usually, the term HAL is considered close to the nanokernels, though this is not exact."

...as I'm not sure what it means. As far as I can see, HALs have most often been associated with classic kernel architectures.

Maybe this was intended to say something like "Nanokernel architectures usually have a hardware abstraction layer, although this is not always the case" ?--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel#Nanokernel It also says that. (#3) If you're less lazy than me, you might look at the reference cited for that section to see if it mentions it. JordyD (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How to call this
I wonder know if it's better to call this concept with layer or notCallmejosh (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)