Slashdot Mirror


10 OSes We Left Behind

CWmike writes "As the tech community gears up to celebrate Unix's 40th birthday this summer, one thing is clear: People do love operating systems. They rely on them, get exasperated by them and live with their little foibles. So now that we're more than 30 years into the era of the personal computer, Computerworld writers and editors, like all technology aficionados, find ourselves with lots of memories and reactions to the OSes of yesteryear (pics galore). We have said goodbye to some of them with regret. (So long, AmigaOS!) Some of them we tossed carelessly aside. (Adios, Windows Me!) Some, we threw out with great force. (Don't let the door hit you on the way out, MS-DOS 4.0!) Today we honor a handful of the most memorable operating systems and interfaces that have graced our desktops over the years. Plus: We take a look back at 40 years since Unix was introduced."

98 of 562 comments (clear)

  1. Bastards! by lastchance_000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They left out Atari TOS!

    1. Re:Bastards! by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Atari ST ran an awful lot of music studios in the 1980s.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Bastards! by mad.frog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Um... that bouncing-ball demo that all the Amiga owners loved to show off?

    3. Re:Bastards! by Threni · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Name one good Amiga Application.

      Deluxe Paint III.

      > None of the Amiga games/demos used the OS for anything

      Loads of shitty bloated American games did (lounge suit larry or whatever the fuck it was called, monkey island etc etc), but none of the fast, European arcade/console-style games did.

    4. Re:Bastards! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ever see a MOD file? Any idea where they came from? SoundTracker was the first tracker, or in modern parlance, music sequencer program available for any platform. All current sequencers, including stuff like Rosegarden, pay homage to SoundTracker.

    5. Re:Bastards! by baka_toroi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fuck yeah! MOD(:P) parent up.

    6. Re:Bastards! by robthebloke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Deluxe Paint 4. I still know professional artists in the FilmFX and games industries who still use it now for texturing work (via an emulator obviously...).

    7. Re:Bastards! by Vectronic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Leisure Suit Larry

      Sadly, it still seems to be in development.

    8. Re:Bastards! by pmbasehore · · Score: 4, Informative

      NewTek's VideoToaster.

      It was at the forefront of video editing technology for many years. I used it in school in the mid-late nineties because it was still the best option around for small-scale stuff.

      --
      $> man woman $> Segmentation fault. (Core dumped)
    9. Re:Bastards! by Cythrawl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Erm.. Lightwave from Newtek. That used to be an Amiga Exclusive and still is a Killer app for it. Chances are if you watch any TV in the early 90's you probably saw an Amgia Videotoaster with Lightwave sequence. Babylon5, Seaquest DSV, The Chart Show.

      And lets not forget such gems as Brilliance (which was FAR batter than Dpaint IMO).
      Plus the Amiga OS was:-
      1) user friendly from day one
      2) had a VERY small footprint
      3) TRUE multitasking (and still is)
      4) No damn Registry or hoping that when you uninstalled an app that it removed everything. Delete the folder and a few library files and that was it.. Done.
      My advice is use the OS and then comment, you obviously didn't (or was an old foaming at the mouth ST owner. In its heyday the Amiga OS had Apple on its knees in regards to functionality.

    10. Re:Bastards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you been asleep all these years?

      LightWave, Imagine, ImageFX, Arexx, Directory Opus or DirWork, RGS(Realtime Granular Synth, which only just NOW has non-Amiga clones almost 20 years after it was written), MindEye, omg do I really have to go on? Bars and Pipes(which Microsoft loved enough to buy it so they could remove the competition)...

      You could also simultaneously display screens with different resolutions. IIRC, that can't be done even to this day.

      AmigaOS itself was great cause you got a preemptive multitasking GUI in under 512k. Can you even boot Vista in under 512 Meg?

    11. Re:Bastards! by Tomun · · Score: 2, Informative

      Deluxe Paint IV
      The Art Department
      Real 3D
      DevPack
      AWeb
      OctaMed

      Also some of the large adventure games did use the OS. I had Beneath a Steel Sky installed to the hard disk for example.

    12. Re:Bastards! by Tomun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We stopped showing that one off when the State of the Art demo came out :)

      Go look, it's still good.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB10C16xSqY|

    13. Re:Bastards! by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...as much as I like my old Atari, I will freely admit that TOS was a bit redundant.

      X shouldn't have been on that list (cause it aint gone).

      Win95 shouldn't be on there because it was essentially more of the same crap that preceeded it.

      NT 3.51 would have been a more appropriate thing to put in it's place.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    14. Re:Bastards! by Toonol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they dumped the GUI (workbench). They generally used the Kernel (Kickstart), which is still part of the operating system.

    15. Re:Bastards! by Jamie's+Nightmare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, the ATARI ST fanboy springs back to life. Allow me to put you back in your place. The ST was pure shit. Compared to the Amiga, it was worse in every possible aspect from Graphics (less colors, resolution modes), Sound (No digital sound, synth only), GUI design (even worse than MAC), and performance (lacked true multitasking).

      Don't even get me started on the software library. Look at Image FX and show me any program for the ST that did anything even close. Exactly. In terms of creativity, there was simply more software for the Amiga in every category. The worst thing about ST fanboys was that they distracted Commodore (a company not very bright to begin with) from the real enemy, the PC. Atari's design sucked from the get go and it was never going to lead anywhere. From the first day of launch the Amiga should have went after the PC market and left ST users behind to rot.

      --
      "When you see a unixer brainwashed beyond saving, kick him out of the door." - Xah Lee
    16. Re:Bastards! by bdcrazy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anybody else find the following funny? No damn Registry [...] Delete the folder and a few library files ... Same problem as everything else.

      --
      Tonights forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely-scattered light towards morning
    17. Re:Bastards! by Tomun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thus demonstrating that Apple don't always innovate, they copy good ideas too.

    18. Re:Bastards! by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>The Atari ST ran an awful lot of music studios in the 1980

      The irony of that is the ST had a lousy sound chip. It didn't sound much better than an 8-bit NES or 8-bit Atari 800, and yet claimed to be a 16/32-bit machine. Hmmm. A better home PC for the late 80s or early 90s was an off-the-shelf Amiga or the Macintosh with color/sound chips added. (Notice I don't recommend an actual PC - since they pretty much sucked prior to 1995.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    19. Re:Bastards! by daveime · · Score: 4, Funny

      You must have a lot of wobbly bookcases eh ?

    20. Re:Bastards! by lastchance_000 · · Score: 3, Informative
      The ST's sound chip didn't matter in the studio. The built-in MIDI ports, and the software that naturally was written to use them did. There was a lot wrong with the ST, but they got that bit right.

      On a related note, one of the developers of MIDI software for the ST was Charles Johnson, of Codehead Software (along with John Eidsvoog), and is now behind the conservative (to put it mildly) blog, Little Green Footballs.

    21. Re:Bastards! by Stele · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hah.

      The first ever morph shown on television was generated on an Amiga, in software called Morph Plus. Later it evolved (morphed?) into a program called Elastic Reality (written by me) which became the de-facto morph/roto program for SGI workstations.

      Not to mention countless television shows in the 90s with cutting edge 3D graphics rendered in a little program called Lightwave 3D. Guess where that came from?

      Show's what you know.

    22. Re:Bastards! by Anaerin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, AREXX was (And still is) miles better than anything on the market. So what if the language itself doesn't have many commands. pretty much every Amiga app had an AREXX port, so if you wanted to play back music while showing a slideshow, you open a music player and a slideshow app, and then write a simple AREXX script to tie the two together.

    23. Re:Bastards! by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Name one good Amiga Application.

      IIRC, they did the CGI to Babylon 5 on Amigas. Basically, started the whole process of CGI.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    24. Re:Bastards! by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>Win95 shouldn't be on there because it was essentially more of the same crap that preceeded it.

      I disagree. Windows 95 was a major step forward in the IBM PC world. It was their first mouse/icon-based OS that was not a pile of shit. Yes, I'm calling Windows 1, 2 and 3 piles of manure. But Windows 95 was the first time I could sit in front of a PC without grinding my teeth and wishing I was back home on either my Mac or my Amiga.

      If I recall correctly Windows 95 was also the first PC OS that made installing hardware easy, rather than a 10 hour chore. It other words it made the PC like a 1990-era Mac.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    25. Re:Bastards! by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of those old Amiga demos look impressive today, because the PCs have caught-up in power and ability, but if you had seen those demos back in 1988 you would have had the same reaction I did - mouth dropping open followed by "wow" followed by "Mom and dad I want one".

      At that same time period, Macs were graphical but still black-and-white, IBM PCs were plain-text screens that went "beep", and Commodore 64s had decent music but only 16 ugly colors. People didn't realize it in 1985, but the Amiga was the first multimedia computer - you could watch or produce both music and video, like seaQuest and Babylon 5 and the Lion King. ----- Or games. Owning an Amiga for gaming was like owning a Sega Genesis back when most people were still playing primitive 8-bit Ataris or NESes.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    26. Re:Bastards! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am not by any stretch of the imagination, an Amiga fan. I never owned an Amiga, and the only time I ever used one was at a friend's house -- one time -- when I had to logon to a BBS to check my private mail.

      I simply admire the Amiga as a computer that was well ahead of its time, something I didn't understand when I was 16 and 18 years old and lacked the imagination and insight to understand. I look back to those days and realize how stupid I was for making fun of all the Amiga users. :)

    27. Re:Bastards! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2

      But you forget one thing: getting information about your computer.

      I had an Atari ST and there was literally nothing to read and nobody to learn from. No users groups, no books, no magazines which were worth a damn.

      The PC's were junk, but if you wanted to get some information on what a BIOS call did, it didn't cost you $300 bucks for the developer's kit (which I didn't have before I made my money).

      If it's 1985, gimme a PC and a copy of Turbo Pascal.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    28. Re:Bastards! by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I disagree. Windows 95 was a major step forward in the IBM PC world. It was their first mouse/icon-based OS that was not a pile of shit.

      I disagree that it was anything more than a pile of shit.

      While it was finally what Microsoft promised in 1985, it didn't really cut the mustard by 1995.

      It was still a DOS shell at it's heart.

      XP was what was promised in 1995.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    29. Re:Bastards! by slapout · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not trying to start an ST/Amiga flame, just agreeing with your point: I haven't seen a program like the old CyberPaint since the days of the ST.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    30. Re:Bastards! by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 3, Informative

      The color Macintosh II came out in 1987. Pricey, but 256 colors out of a palette of millions in a 640x480 (std) or 70x x 512 (MaxAppleZoom) display. Apple IIGS came out with color in 1986. I forget the resolution/number of colors/palette issues on that machine, as I never had one.

      The article left off Apple DOS 3.3.

    31. Re:Bastards! by Tore+S+B · · Score: 2, Funny

      Show's what you know.

      No. Clearly, show is what *you* know.

      --
      toresbe
    32. Re:Bastards! by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes the first CGI was done on expensive supercomputers (i.e. Cray) and the earliest television show to use CGI was Doctor Who in 1987, but those effects were extremely expensive (millions of dollars) which is why most shows like Star Trek continued using models or artistic drawings. The Amiga was the first machine that could do CGI for less than $4000.

      >>>I know the pilot had its CGI upgraded later

      Bzzz. Producer J.Michael Straczynski re-edited the film since he didn't like the original version, and changed the music, but the CGI was left exactly the same as my ancient 1993 recording. Also according to JMS, the Amigas and Video Toasters were not retired until after season 1. This corresponds with the Lurkers Guide "later Pentiums/DEC Alphas were added" which is vague but refers to season 2 onward. You can see the corresponding increase in the CGI quality with episode 201. Prior to that there are many CGI scenes that appear very lo-resolution (you can see giant pixels).

      The Babylon 5 effects crew abandoned ship with episode 401, and moved to Star Trek Voyager's season 3 and eventually DS9's season 6, replacing the model effects that had been Trek's preference.

      Another show that used the Video Toaster was NBC's seaQuest. Like Babylon5 they probably started with Amiga (since the 1993 toaster only worked with Amigas) and later upgraded to newer hardware. Walt Disney also used Amigas to create the CGI scenes with the Rescuers, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, and more videogames than I can enumerate.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    33. Re:Bastards! by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree that it was anything more than a pile of shit.

      Considering the constraints, it was a fairly amazing achievement.

      While it was finally what Microsoft promised in 1985, it didn't really cut the mustard by 1995.

      Microsoft promised a 32-bit, memory protected, pre-emptive multitasking, GUI OS in 1985 ? What were they going to run it on ?

      It was still a DOS shell at it's heart.

      It was not. A "DOS shell" doesn't provide memory protection, pre-emptive multitasking, hardware drivers or a complex compatibility layer.

      XP was what was promised in 1995.

      Please explain why XP would qualify as "what was promised in 1995, but Windows NT 3.1 would not.

    34. Re:Bastards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know about CyberPaint, but there was actually an MS-DOS PC port of deluxe paint itself (roughly akin to amiga deluxe paint ii). It's not terrible or anything, though obviously dated, even compared to later amiga dpaint releases or even later amiga cloanto "personal paint" (ppaint).

      TVPaint is very expensive, but still around in modern form, and also started out on the Amiga and was ported to the PC.

      Idruna photogenics also started out as an amiga package - while it's marketed at image editing/film postprocessing, it inherits an unusual level of "original composition"* natural-media type tools.

      * The core difference between amiga art/animation packages and most photoshop-like PC/Mac art packages is really that *most* Amiga art packages were oriented squarely at bitmapped image/animation original composition rather than photo manipulation. Both Photoshop and GIMP are cheerfully aimed at existing image manipulation (retouching/"airbrushing") first and foremost (as you can tell from the names, and they work well enough for that). In a lot of ways, modern vector art packages are closer "spiritual" successors of amiga bitmap (or occasionally vector towards the "end") art packages than modern bitmap art packages.

  2. Lights Out - RIP CBM by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Poke 53280,0
    Poke 53281,0
    New

    Ready.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  3. Amiga was more than just the OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was great and ahead of its time, but the Amiga was a whole that was greater than the sum of its parts.

    The OS plus the hardware platform of Agnus, Denise, made the Amiga special.

    The OS on its own was less special, even though it was far ahead of the glorified dos shell that windows was.

    1. Re:Amiga was more than just the OS by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The hardware was OK by 1991 when it finally got the ability to display 8 bit color with AGA without cheating (yes, before that ECS/OCS Amiga's could only do 32 colours in low res, 16 in high res). Even when Commodore shut down the Amiga could only do 8 bit audio (it was high quality actually, but still only 8 bits). The way the Amiga video chips worked it was neat for platform games, side scrolling games and 2d/3d (animated) video effects and thats about it. Couldn't even do chunky video modes (without chunky 2 planar software routines) which were all the rage when Doom came out. Oh and the independent displays which allowed you to page through them like a notebook (best way I can describe it). Even the built in CIA (complex interface adapter) could only support 19.2k serial speed - 56.6k if you had an AGA machine with an 040. The hardware was OK, but getting dated - even on my A4000 when I got it new in 92.

      The OS was state of the art though - I ran a bbs on a program called CNet connected to serial.device. Added another modem to some 4 port serial board called uart.device. Then the internet came along - ran the BBS over the net for a while on a driver called telser.device (it was a telnet modem emulator) - all without ANY modification to the Cnet software what-so-ever and it was cake to setup.

      The OS lacked memory protection and was flakey if processes got out of hand (even then - I do remember using it for hours on end without issues) - still even if it crashed it took 2 seconds to boot - even if I had well over 50+ user started processes in user-startup.

      Don't be fooled though - the real star of the show was the OS, and when I saw it (OS 4) demo'd on a modern machine using commodity hardware it was just as wonderful.

      It wasn't a glorified ms-dos shell - it had real driver support, the OS supported windows, multi-tasking, libraries, it had an SDK and window resizing and scaling (automatically - unlike the Mac at the time) as a few of the hundreds of features all without Workbench (which is the GUI shell pictured in the article).

      >> someone who used an Amiga for well over 8 years.

  4. Whoa! 40 years old!? by Samschnooks · · Score: 5, Funny
    Oh God! Gotta find an excuse to get rid of the old fogy. No one is creative over 40!

    Um, Unix was insubordinate. Unix was late in its tasks. Unix didn't offer anything to the team - it didn't work well with Windows. Unix refused to take time off - it insisted on working all the time; even when other OSes wanted the time off.Unix is not a team player. Unix refuses to learn new technologies (specifics available one request). Unix made sexual advances to other OSes: tried to "hadnshake" with Windows, "Integrated" with OS X.

    It is my profound conclusion and advice that Unix should be terminated. It is an "out of date" operating system and therefore; contributes to an"out of date" business model.

  5. Some of them we tossed carelessly aside... by Zakabog · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTA: "Some of them we tossed carelessly aside. (Adios, Windows Me!)"

    I took great care in building a trebuchet capable of tossing Windows Me far enough from in order to keep it from further damaging my poor, unsuspecting PC.

    1. Re:Some of them we tossed carelessly aside... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Funny

      I took great care in building a trebuchet capable of tossing Windows Me far enough from in order to keep it from further damaging my poor, unsuspecting PC.

      If the PC is your baby, Windows ME is child molestation. 'nuff said.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Some of them we tossed carelessly aside... by Pope · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why do people keep wanting to build tree buckets? Is it something to do with maple syrup?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  6. Hey, they forgot SCOPE by e9th · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My first 3 years of programming were spent on CDC 6600s running SCOPE. You learn a lot about efficient debugging when you're using punched cards and even a short job has a half hour turnaround time.

  7. Criteria by aviators99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't understand the criteria used to select these operating systems to remember. It's mostly consumer OSes, but then they throw in some hobby OSes (plus the bizarre X-Windows, which they admit is not an OS, and I claim is still alive).

    The ones I remember most fondly include:

    Pr1mos
    Multics
    Tops-20 (Twenex)
    Tops-10
    ITS
    VMS
    VM/CMS
    MVS
    RSTS
    RSX

    1. Re:Criteria by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have fond memories of OS/9 running on my Tandy CoCo3 with 128mb of RAM. I did some of my first explorations into the world of a pre-emptive multitasking kernel on that critter. It was a damned elegant operating system.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Criteria by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah... TOPS-20. When men were men, and TECO was the text editor of choice!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    3. Re:Criteria by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember Apollo Domain/OS? That was a really great operating system for it's day (late 80's). It had a security model integrated with the filesystem and was network aware (like LDAP sort of) and the networking filesystem was better than anything I've seen since then.

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    4. Re:Criteria by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have fond memories of OS/9 running on my Tandy CoCo3 with 128mb of RAM. I did some of my first explorations into the world of a pre-emptive multitasking kernel on that critter. It was a damned elegant operating system

      Yes, that's right, those of you scratching your heads wondering what he's on about. To put things in perspective, an operating system developed for an 2 Mhz 8-Bit Microprocessor in the 1980s had Windows 95's most touted advancement more than a decade sooner: a pre-emptive multitasking kernel. Not only that, it had support for POSIX threads, which was supposed to be Windows NT's most touted advancement.

      Now you kids and your modern operating systems can get off of my lawn.

    5. Re:Criteria by nkovacs · · Score: 2, Informative

      MVS is not dead. IBM just released z/OS version 1.10 in September, 2008.

    6. Re:Criteria by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 5, Informative

      AmigaOS - Still going thank you (Last update September 2008)
      BeOS - Still Going thank you (as Haiku last update... last night)

      The X Window System - Not an operating system, not gone! Could they not find a 10th ...

      VMS - Still going thank you (Now called OpenVMS still in active development)

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    7. Re:Criteria by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      VMS isn't dead either. It's still supported for VAX, Alpha and Itanium hardware, although you can only buy new Itanium systems running it. Somewhat ironically, the 4-ring protection model introduced with the 80386 was designed to make porting VMS to Intel chips (from VAX) easier. Instead, VMS went to Alpha, which only had two protection modes...

      I still have a soft spot for RMX. A multitasking, realtime OS that ran on the 8086 (and even the 8080). One of the first programming languages I learned was PL/M, which didn't really take off outside RMX (although I learned on the DOS version). It's astonishing how quaint and backwards C seems as a low-level language after using PL/M again.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Criteria by Gizzmonic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bill Gates (or more accurately, Bill Gates' rich parents) bought QDOS (quick and dirty operating system), a CP/M clone designed by Tim Paterson, for something like $10,000. Gates renamed it MS-DOS and convinced IBM to use it as the basis for their new home PC. That half-assed CP/M clone, limited even compared to the OSs of its day, was the basis of just about every MS OS until Win95. And if Gates' parents had never been rich, chances are this stuff would have never happened.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  8. OS/2 STILL multitasks better than Windoze by blahbooboo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ah OS/2 an amazing OS in many ways.

    I remember on a Pentium 90 being able to actually WORK in an imaging application, while I was simultaneously both printing a document and copying a floppy disk.

    All current OSes seem to momentarily halt to do one task or another even today.
       

    1. Re:OS/2 STILL multitasks better than Windoze by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All current OSes? Try something other than Windows, you might be surprised.

    2. Re:OS/2 STILL multitasks better than Windoze by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No joke. I can't understand why intensive disk I/O, with the CPU spiking under 5%, causes windows applications to respond as if a high-priority thread were calculating PI in the background. SMS updates + on-access virus scanning make the whole OS very nearly unusable. Even though it doesn't use almost any real CPU time, if I set the priority to BELOW NORMAL everything running at NORMAL priority is immediately responsive again.

      Is the OS swapping out executable code in deference to having a large data cache? That's the only case I can think of where IO should affect application performance - if it's already loaded, it should be executing while IO for another process happens in the background. Or maybe it's registry data that's swapped out. Either way, I cannot understand why my dual-core CPU at 2% usage doesn't respond to something that the user is doing.

      I copy a large data file from one partition to another and Windows tells me my virtual memory is low. You're caching a huge file just in case I might want to load it again?

      The worst part is when something spikes the CPU, and CTRL+ALT+DEL takes a minute or two to bring up the task manager.

    3. Re:OS/2 STILL multitasks better than Windoze by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I remember on a Pentium 90 being able to actually WORK in an imaging application, while I was simultaneously both printing a document and copying a floppy disk.

      My NT4 machine handled this fine. Heck, I used to burn CDs (at a blazing 4x on my brand new CD burner) and play Quakeworld at the same time on that baby.

      NT was built to replace OS/2, and it showed. OS/2 was single user, had no SMP support and didn't even have a dynamic disk cache. That's before even getting into the 16 bit HPFS layer and the infamous Single Input Queue.

    4. Re:OS/2 STILL multitasks better than Windoze by PReDiToR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Under Windows 95 with a 2x CD recorder (4x were too expensive) we used to set the recording up.
      Once the key was pressed we'd take a large but gentle step away from the machine so as to not inadvertently move the mouse while it was "working"

      Half an hour later we'd return carefully to the room to see if the CD light was still on.
      Temperamental semi-Operating System. Attempting any task while a write was in progress yielded a coffee mat.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  9. That last screen shot of X by just_another_sean · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The last shot in the picture gallery of X is what a lot of my Debian servers look like. I still love twm. I generally just install it and gvim on a server and it's all the gui I ever need. I simply copy the system.twmrc file to root/.twmrc, add the keyword "RandomPlacement" and change that ugly green color to midnightblue.

    Once I got used to the keyboard shortcuts I find it works really well. Of course on a server I'm generally just running multiple xterms and gvim. Oh and maybe a browser or an Xman page...

    If you ask me, some things never go out of style. ;-)

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    1. Re:That last screen shot of X by 0racle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      X on a server? Heresy I tell you.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:That last screen shot of X by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Insightful

      X on a server? Heresy I tell you.

      I was waiting for that. Yes since about Etch I've decided that's OK to put a minimal X on a server. I finally decided that a graphical browser for googling solutions and multiple xterms are better then lynx and virtual terminals.

      But I respect your opinion and would use a command line (80x25 of course) until death to defend your right to hold it! :-)

      (and hey, no fair, I see your sig!)

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    3. Re:That last screen shot of X by just_another_sean · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you ask me, some things never go out of style. ;-)

      No, it just means you are aesthetically-challenged. twm is just plain ugly. If I were going to use something with minimal footprint, I'd at least want something good to look at such as wm2, ratpoison, or blackbox/fluxbox/openbox

      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've used it forever, I know how to customize it to my liking in five minutes or less and, as I mentioned, I am very familiar with the keyboard use in twm. Could I learn the others if I needed to? Sure, but I'm a function before fashion kind of guy anyway so I don't bother.

      Now. Do you need a hug?

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  10. Re:UNIX is not a by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    No need to be so pendantic...

  11. DOS 5.0 by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IMO, DOS 5.0 was the best OS Microsoft made.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:DOS 5.0 by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, the many hours configuring himem ... the multiple memory manager profiles, the keeping straight of incompatibilities between extended and expanded memory, finding the settings that would work with Wing Commander, changing them to work with Star Trek 25th Anniverary ... those were the days.

      The days of grinding awfulness, but days, none the less. It taught me a whole lot about how DOS did business, that's for sure.

  12. Another good one! by CaptainJeff · · Score: 2, Informative

    This was a really good article.

    It comes along at the same time as this one:

    http://technologizer.com/2009/03/26/whatever-happened-to/

    This article is an amazing summary of 25 pieces of technology (HW, SW, services) that are still around but are (almost) completely forgotten by everyone. Good read.

  13. Whaddya mean 'missed out on cassette computing'? by Ronald+Dumsfeld · · Score: 3, Informative

    A mildly amusing snipe at the end of the article mentions the author missing out on computers that used good-old cassette tape.

    Some of us remember punched cards, the things we had at home were toys with cassette players attached.

    I still think the Z80 and successors were great processors - why did we end up with that piece of shit the 8086?

    --
    Where's the Kaboom?
    There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
  14. The 10 OSes I have gladly left behind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Windows 3.1
    Windows 3.11
    Windows NT 4.0
    Windows 95
    Windows 98
    Windows 98se
    Windows ME
    Windows 2000
    Windows Vista
    Windows 7

    1. Re:The 10 OSes I have gladly left behind... by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Windows NT 4.0

      Windows NT 4.0 is the only version of MS Windows I've used I did not have trouble with. That could be because I haven't used my NT4 PC much. Because the CPU is a DEC Alpha I wasn't able to install all the software I wanted to use.

      Falcon

    2. Re:The 10 OSes I have gladly left behind... by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I presume you're being funny, but why was 2000 bad, and XP good? XP is mostly 2000 with extra fluff I usually turn off, and newer drivers/updates installed as standard (which is handy to save downloading, but this didn't apply when 2000 was a recent OS). And XP was hated on places like Slashdot when it first came out - everyone preferred 2000...

  15. so how'd these OSes look? by yanyan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Great site with lots of pics of old OS user interfaces: http://toastytech.com/guis/

  16. ProDOS by pauljlucas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I fondly remember ProDOS for the Apple //.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    1. Re:ProDOS by pauljlucas · · Score: 2, Informative

      They missed the other Dos 3.3 (Applesoft), too... oh, wait, that was a MS OS running on Apple hardware - maybe that was intentional.

      Apple's DOS 3.3 had nothing to do with Microsoft's DOS (MS-DOS). The former was written by Wozniak himself.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  17. One more (recent) Addition to the list by Alzheimers · · Score: 4, Insightful
  18. What about BOB? by cve · · Score: 4, Funny

    MS BOB was the OS that made computing personal for me.

  19. There is a slight Mac head skew here... by Cordath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While there are lots of little things in this article that indicate the author has never used anything that didn't come out of Cupertino, the one thing that bugged me the most was his willful ignorance of preemptive multi-tasking.

    In preemptive multitasking, the OS gives each application running a time-slice to do their thing and then, typically, takes control and gives the next app it's turn. This means you can put any program you want in the background and it will keep on running. We take this for granted today, but prior to 1995, most users never had this luxury. Amiga was probably the earliest OS to go sort of mainstream that had preemptive multitasking.

    The article says:

    "It wasn't until the late 1990s that Windows NT, OS/2 and the Mac OS were able to multitask as well -- and they required vast hardware resources to do it."

    Wrong. Windows95 had full preemptive multitasking. It didn't have protected memory. That feature would stay in the NT stream until XP. However, mainstream MS users enjoyed preemptive multitasking from 1995 on.

    MacOS, on the other hand, never had preemptive multitasking. Later versions had cooperative multitasking which relied on programs being specially written to support it. However, just one app running without that support was all it took to bring your Mac to a screeching halt. The late 90's were a horrible time to be a Mac user, and Apple's market share declined sharply during this period because of how primitive the last versions of MacOS were compared to everything else on the market. After the return of Jobs in the late 90's, Apple started to turn around by making flashy hardware, colored iMac's, those god-awful puck-mice, etc.. It wasn't until OSX came along that Apple was able to attract (at least some) users more interested in working on their macs than in how they looked.

    1. Re:There is a slight Mac head skew here... by Reziac · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used to know a guy who ran GeoWorks on his XT, with all of 512k of RAM. It multitasked, I'm not sure by what method, but it could be busy printing invoices in the background while he was surfing the 'net (in textmode) and reading/sending emails, all with no slowdowns or "system busy" lagging. He was still using it for everyday stuff in the mid-1990s.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:There is a slight Mac head skew here... by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article says:

      "It wasn't until the late 1990s that Windows NT, OS/2 and the Mac OS were able to multitask as well -- and they required vast hardware resources to do it."

      ...which is absolutely correct.

      Wrong. Windows95 had full preemptive multitasking. It didn't have protected memory. That feature would stay in the NT stream until XP. However, mainstream MS users enjoyed preemptive multitasking from 1995 on.

      ...which doesn't contradict what the "Apple Fanboy" said.

      Plus, Windows95 was still a DOS shell. It was a very flawed implementation of
      "pre-emptive multitasking" so much so that many of us prefered NT at that time.
      Now while it was true that NT was available then, it was still as the author
      described it (required more resources) and was far from a mainstream product
      for consumer use.

      This was a common problem/complaint/hurdle of all of the "serious" PC
      operating systems in the mid 90s. Mid 90's PCs just didn't cut the
      mustard. Windows 3.1 even didn't really do well until the bottom fell
      out of memory prices around 1996.

      Not being a Lemming doesn't make you an Apple Fanboy.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:There is a slight Mac head skew here... by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plus, Windows95 was still a DOS shell.

      Windows 95 was a LOT more than "a DOS shell". It handled hardware drivers, memory management, CPU scheduling, user interaction, provided APIs, etc, etc. In fact, it did everything any textbook would consider to define an OS.

  20. Neither article mentions Coherent by hwyhobo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Neither article mentions Coherent, a clone of Unix v.7. Their early version could run on lowly pre-386 hardware. They didn't have TCP/IP or virtual memory (until later versions), but they did include C development tools and UUCP.

    --
    End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  21. VAX VMS by mrkitty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What, no VAX VMS or OpenVMS? People still use it in healthcare systems even though it came out around 1978. How I miss the good old days in the 1990's using a vax/vms in high school and UUCP'ing to send mail out of the building, and using our student BBS authored in DCL.

    --
    Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
    1. Re:VAX VMS by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Informative

      OpenVMS is still in active development .... So not gone .... ...and Windows NT was written by the development team who wrote VMS! (Oh how are the mighty fallen)

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  22. The list is pretty bad. by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd consider the Archimedes RISC OS to have been more significant than something like GEOS. 386BSD was the first true Open Source UNIX-like OS for the PC, yet never gets a mention. MSX was trashy, but was the first effort to get a truly cross-vendor platform. Back when Windows 3.x had no notion of preemption, there were OS' for the PC (Desqview and GEM) that were at least going in the right direction.

    Although GNU's HURD gets a brief mention, MACH is more than HURD and the fate of the original HURD cannot be understood without understanding the fate of MACH. Plan 9's fate is also unmentioned, although it likely had a major influence on the way people imagine clusters and cloud computing today.

    As is common with arbitrary top 10 lists, it shows far more about the prejudice of the one doing the selection than it does about the products being selected. There are no criteria for the list that I can see, other than the author knew how to spell the name.

    It doesn't give credible coverage of the OS' that have died over the years, nor credible coverage of the reasons. In fact, I'm not even sure you can give credible coverage of the entire OS domain in a mere 10 entries. A list of 100 OS' might just about give a feel for the experiments and ambitions of developers, the path evolution has taken, but ten? And most of those being derivatives of each other, rather than independent lines of thinking!

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:The list is pretty bad. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'd argue that EPOC16 is also pretty important. Most of the EPOC16 code was ditched for EPOC32 (it was mostly 8086 assembly, and EPOC32 needed to run on ARM), but a lot of inspiration came from the earlier version. EPOC32 was later rebranded Symbian and enjoys around 70% of the mobile phone market (which became larger than the PC market a couple of years ago). I'd say this makes EPOC16 a pretty influential - but mostly overlooked - OS.

      I only ever owned one device that ran EPOC16, but it did manage to run a multitasking graphical environment on that device, with a 3.84MHz 8086-compatible and 256KB of RAM. The RAM was also used as a RAM disk for storing files.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:The list is pretty bad. by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and then you'll list about 90 OSes that most people haven't heard of or don't care about. The 10 that the article has listed (actually 9 since X Window isn't an OS) most computing people have heard of and know about in passing at least.

  23. So that's what AmigaOS looked like by AnalPerfume · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had an Amiga for a couple of years when they were popular. Many of my mates had Amigas then too. None of us used them for anything other than games, so we never seen anything beyond the white screen with the hand holding the floppy disc. I keep hearing about how well regarded the AmigaOS was but have never seen screenshots until this article.

  24. When computing was FUN! by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Though I use multiple operating systems today, and like OS X and Linux the best, I gotta say, I miss Windows 95.

    Yes, it was unstable. Yes, it was hyped to the clouds. Yes, it brought nothing new to computing that Mac OS and Amiga hadn't already done. But it was fun. Part of this is because Windows 95 coincided with the Internet really catching on with the public. Dial-up, and then cable, AOL (which, for all its criticisms, made the Internet available to the non-tech public), browsers, email, IRC... all of that was shiny and new back then, and Windows 95 carried it to most of the world. PC gaming really took off with Windows 95. Myst was a revolution. Doom II ate up a lot of my life. Who back then didn't spend many weekends staying up all night, to the breaking sun of dawn, playing games, "surfing the web", and chatting, in AOL rooms or IRC, with people far across the globe in real time? Who wasn't amazed and excited doing these things?

    Guys, that was fun. And I miss those days. I still occasionally run Win 95 in VM just to play something like Hover. And when I do, I remember what it was like to actually enjoy the computer.

      Modern personal computing was really built on what Windows 95 brought to the public. And now computing isn't fun anymore, anymore than, say, using a telephone is. It's ordinary, commonplace, and utilitarian now. Much like flying on a commercial airliner these days. Guys like Charles Lindbergh would be amazed if he could've seen what it was like to fly on a 777. But to us, eh, it's just a way to get from one place to another. And that pretty much sums up the feel of computing today.

    One caviat here; I wasn't a Mac user back then, and I've since had a chance to play with Classic OS on an old iMac, and I gotta say, It was brilliant. It had it's own problems, but I have to admit that now I see what the big deal was. That was a special OS, and after playing with it for a weekend, I was actually overcome with a feeling of sadness at one point, because I realized that all throughout the nineties, I missed out on this. The classic Mac OS really was everything it's fans claimed.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  25. Apple ][ OSes by Remloc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, we have the PC OSes, of course.
    We have the Amiga OS, ok.
    We have Commodore OSes, ok, if you must.
    We have TRSDOS, ok, for the few who used it.

    Why no DOS 3.3 or ProDos?

  26. Re:Can you call X really forgotten? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's a bit weird that NeXTSTEP is on the list. It was rebranded OPENSTEP and then Mac OS X, but it's still shipping.

    One of the saddest losses was A/UX, the first UNIX to be suitable for the home user. If Apple had kept developing it after the PowerPC switch then the current OS landscape might be very different. The same is true of Xenix. It's strange to think that both Apple and Microsoft used to sell UNIX systems way back in the '80s.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  27. Re:Whaddya mean 'missed out on cassette computing' by oldhack · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was software-compatible with 8080, but had twice the registers and supported faster clocks, among other things. Their 16-bit offering was Z8000, I think, but once IBM PC went with 8088, it had no chance.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  28. Re:Whaddya mean 'missed out on cassette computing' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You do know that the Z80 was just a clone from the same line that spawned the 8086 right?

  29. AROS by DGolden · · Score: 2, Informative

    AROS is an open source operating system largely source-compatible with AmigaOS 3.x APIs and runs on modern PCs. It's not "finished", and shares AmigaOS weaknesses as well as strengths, but is usable (helped by recompiles of a load of amiga stuff from the Aminet (still around!) I guess) :

    http://aros.sourceforge.net/

    Grab a liveCD from Icaros desktop and give it a go.

    http://vmwaros.blogspot.com/

    I wouldn't really want to use a system lacking full memory protection in the modern era (though some effort at retrofitting memory protection is underway IIRC), but it does work.

    --
    Choice of masters is not freedom.
  30. Amiga and DOS by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The worst thing about ST fanboys was that they distracted Commodore (a company not very bright to begin with) from the real enemy, the PC. Atari's design sucked from the get go and it was never going to lead anywhere. From the first day of launch the Amiga should have went after the PC market and left ST users behind to rot.

    Actually the Amiga could run MS/PC DOS, as well as the Mac OS. Of course it required a third party board to run DOS and a board as well as Mac memory chips to run Mac OS. I was amazed the first tyme I saw an Amiga running Workbench, Mac software, and Windows at the same tyme.

    I think the problem is more than just what you say though it's part of it. Commodore sucked at marketing the Amiga period. I didn't see the Escom deal as any better, but when Gateway bought it I was hoping they'd resurrect the Amiga.

    Falcon

  31. How soon the kids forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The royalty among operating systems in the 1970s:
      ITS
      TOPS-10
      TENEX
      TOPS-20
      MULTICS
      VAX/VMS
      RSX-11
      any IBM mainframe OS
    and yes
      UNIX

    All now gone except for UNIX.

  32. Saying goodbye doesn't mean it's gone by amigabill · · Score: 5, Informative

    AmigaOS 4.1 was released in September 2008. Sure, there may be a miniscule number of people still using/buying it in your terms, but it's still here.

  33. What the??? You missed fingered? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Funny

    Geez, how could you miss "fingered CP/M"

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. BeOS, because of speed by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was monkeying around with a C64 emulator the other day, and it struck me how bad those old OSes were. I do have some nostalgia for these things, but more for the times they represented in my life than because I miss the hardware and software. In truth they were mostly cobbled-together messes.

    BeOS is the only one I truly miss, and that is because it had something none of the current OSes have: Low user latency. With the current crop of OSes we take it for granted that:

    • machines take minutes to boot,
    • applications take tens of seconds to launch and quit,
    • opening or changing a filesystem view takes a second or longer,
    • applications can completely freeze out the user for tens of seconds at a time (like when a browser can't connect, or when Mac OS X can't find a disk volume it thinks should be there),
    • all user actions are accompanied by delays, even ones that would be trivial to avoid with prefetching or caching

    What I miss about BeOS was the whole design aesthetic of putting the user first, never blocking user input, and making the common use cases fast.