Slashdot Mirror


Old Operating Systems Never Die

Harry writes "Haiku, an open-source re-creation of legendary 1990s operating system BeOS, was released in alpha form this week. The news made me happy and led me to check in on the status of other once-prominent OSes — CP/M, OS/2, AmigaOS, and more. Remarkably, none of them are truly defunct: In one form or another, they or their descendants are still available, being used by real people to accomplish useful tasks. Has there ever been a major OS that simply went away, period?"

70 of 875 comments (clear)

  1. MacOS 9 by tetsukaze · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple hires hit men to track down users and kill them

    1. Re:MacOS 9 by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, as recently as last year I encountered a user who had OS 9 at home, running some ancient version of the mac version of IE (5.x), he was having issues with some third party websites and software but refused to accept that the problem was on his end, kind of like your average Win95/98/ME user...

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:MacOS 9 by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did you receive the fax about the IE6 users?

    3. Re:MacOS 9 by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Informative

      "he was having issues with some third party websites and software "

      I'm lucky enough to have a iMac (not using it right now) with OS 9 and IE 5 and the internet is pretty much unusable. Flash doesn't work, so no youtube, and webmail sites like hotmail, gmail and yahoo also do not work. About the only thing that does work is Google and news sites.

      However the new Classilla browser might have changed all that. I'll have to dig out the iMac and see how it does.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:MacOS 9 by tetsukaze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In all seriousness, I have also run into people that won't give up on that OS. The amazing part to me is that they don't really have to. Certain tasks do not change and despite the lack of support from Apple and software vendors most of those system are running smoothly. It could be due to the larger install base, but Windows 9x systems I run into that are task specific are plagued with issues.

    5. Re:MacOS 9 by joeyblades · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My wife still runs MacOS 9 on an old G3 Gossamer. It does everything she wants and needs. Why upgrade? There are lots of people still using MacOS 9.

      I'm pretty sure the original poster for OS9 was not talking about MacOS 9. There's an old OS called OS9 that had nothing to do with Macs. It was one of the rirst real-time multitasking OSes. It's still going strong with hobbists because it's tiny, efficient, and powerful. It was originally developed for the Motorola 6809, which is where it gets it's name.

      Verdict: NOT DEAD (OS9 nor MacOS 9)

    6. Re:MacOS 9 by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually I have a customer that refuses to let go of his old WinME box he keeps in the back, and for him it is a great little OS. You see, working PC repair I believe I have found what was the big fuckup in WinME. WinME allowed the OEMs to use either the older Vxd drivers, or the new WDM driver model. That was a bad idea of Itanic proportions.

      You see my customer got one of the few boxes that the OEM used NOTHING but WDM drivers, and it is solid and pain free. Myself and most others at the time got the fucked up OEM version because MSFT allowed both driver models (you still owe me an apology and a copy of Win2K Bill Gates!) which equaled an unstable mess. If you had a box with ONLY WDM drivers it runs fine, but HP and many others reused their Win9X drivers for the older onboard parts and only provided WDM for newer onboards and cards. This caused driver contentions and all kinds of instability, like how I could set my watch by my WinME box (which I am actually typing this on. With Win2K it has been running for nearly 9 years as a rock solid Netbox) die within 5 minutes of boot every. single. time. even if you didn't actually touch anything. The onboard sound was Vxd, the video WDM and so a crashing we will go.

      So don't be surprised that there are plenty of old boxes doing a single job and doing it well. Many are either like the DOS 3 box I built for a lumber mill where they had a CNC controller that wouldn't run on anything else, or like the WinME guy and running an old astronomy program and doing it quite well, or myself and this Win2K Netbox. If it works why toss it out?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:MacOS 9 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recently did some consulting at a company that does large-scale data transfer (from tape, paper, microfilm, microfiche, to tape, paper, microfilm, microfiche, or DVD; quite a few banks use them to transfer data from mainframe tapes to something useful). They still use Photoshop on MacOS 9 on their high-resolution A3 scanner; it runs faster than OS X on the machine connected to it and there's only one program running, so there's not much difference between the program crashing and the OS crashing.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:MacOS 9 by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For long term Win9x usage I've found the best thing to do is get rid of the cruft, that is any crap you are not using. The money spent on a copy of Win98 Lite goes a long way when it comes to keeping Win9x alive for long periods IMHO. If you have an old copy of Win95 lying around you can even replace the slower Win98 shell with the non IE based Win95 shell and make it a screaming demon even on really old boxes.

      I used Win98 Lite myself to strip down an old 733Mhz I keep for a Win98/DOS game box. It is easy to use and really gave that box a kick in the pants. They have a demo if there is anybody out there still needing Win9x for one reason or another. But if you want to keep a Win9x box going there is no better tool.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by natehoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Was it THAT good, or is it doubly obsolete? ;)

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    1. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by Eudial · · Score: 5, Funny

      OS/2 is clearly half an OS. So OS/2 + OS/2 = OS.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    2. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Informative

      Back then yes, was THAT good. The desktop (WPS) was simply amazing, HPFS had features that would be nice to see in main linux filesystems (was so aggresive with putting files in contiguous blocks that a defrag script back then just renamed forth and back all files to do the work), and had good management of memory and multitasking. In a modern pc, with current memory/clock speeds, if you manage that it work with all the hardware, would fly. Still today, there is some software maintained for it (i think that i.e. Opera 10 have an OS/2 version). If it (or some of the good portions of it, i.e. the wps) would have been released like 10 years ago in public domain/open source/etc) you probably would be using a derivative of it right now.

    3. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by dingen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Back then yes, was THAT good.

      If by "good" you mean "a lot of advanced features" then you probably would be right. If "good" however includes enough performance to be useful, OS/2 never was a very good OS. Windows 95 would scream (to quote Steve Jobs) on my 486 DX in the day, while OS/2 Warp 3 would present me with an hourglass mouse pointer most of the time.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    4. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by nizo · · Score: 5, Funny

      At 1920 screen resolution...

      Weren't screens made up of a 10x10 array of clay tablets back then?

    5. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Funny

      Windows in any form has always been a PIG on any machine that didn't have enough memory to run a proper Unix.

      This includes Windows 95.

      Windows wins no awards in the "slim OS" category. At best, it might have a slight edge (molasses in january vs. amber).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

      I worked at several computer stores back then and it was the exact opposite actually. Windows 95 would not run very well on a 486 unless you had at least 16MB RAM (where 4 and 8 was the standard back then) especially if you started adding more applications or device drivers. Some 486 processors (IBM's Blue Lightning) actually had issues because they were based on the 386's with added instructions and would BSOD no matter what. A Pentium did actually much better.

      OS/2 Warp 4 had some wonderful applications and did very well on both 386 and 486, never crashed (it was more stable than most workstation UNIX back then) and could run Windows' 16-bit programs. The great thing is that IBM kept support around for a long, long time so many banks were running it in their offices even until very recently.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If by "good" you mean "a lot of advanced features" then you probably would be right. If "good" however includes enough performance to be useful, OS/2 never was a very good OS. Windows 95 would scream (to quote Steve Jobs) on my 486 DX in the day, while OS/2 Warp 3 would present me with an hourglass mouse pointer most of the time.

      OS/2 wasn't in the same category as Windows 95 - it was in the same category as Windows NT. OS/2 and Windows NT required much more memory than Windows 9x. Once you got an OS/2 machine up to >= 16Meg of memory, it was just fine.

    8. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (was so aggresive with putting files in contiguous blocks that a defrag script back then just renamed forth and back all files to do the work)

      While this might be a decent idea if the whole system knew about it, introducing it to modern Linux would be a catastrophe at best. Fill an ext3/ext4 up to 50% with typical desktop usage patterns (download-delete-move-copy-edit-etc), turn this feature on, and try to torrent a 4Gb file. You'll have plenty of time to think about the merits of your idea, I promise.

      Now, think about all the programs that were written with the knowledge that renames are fast. Go no further: the standard toolchain is more than enough to demonstrate this. Is it absolutely necessary that temporary files, however big, are contiguous?

      Now, add in SSD's and realize the whole debate is getting pointless.

      In a modern pc, with current memory/clock speeds, if you manage that it work with all the hardware, would fly.

      Nope. In a modern PC, we're taught to optimize for development speed. Make it run, make it right, and then make it fast. Which means programs get bloated, and nobody cares because computers can keep up. Note how the choice of OS does not affect this process. This is why it's still considered acceptable for a desktop computer to boot in more than 5 seconds.

    9. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I worked at several computer stores back then and it was the exact opposite actually. Windows 95 would not run very well on a 486 unless you had at least 16MB RAM (where 4 and 8 was the standard back then) especially if you started adding more applications or device drivers.

      The original Windows 95 release was quite usable in 8MB of RAM. It wasn't until IE4 beefed up the shell that 16MB+ became necessary.

      At the same time, OS/2 basically required 16MB (you could limp by in 12MB), and NT4 20MB.

      OS/2 Warp 4 had some wonderful applications and did very well on both 386 and 486, never crashed (it was more stable than most workstation UNIX back then) [...]

      Sounds like you didn't actually use it much. The SIQ was a notorious OS/2 problem and would usually lock it up at least every couple of days (and that's if you weren't doing anything particularly interesting).

      Between OS/2 and a properly setup Windows 95 system, without any 16-bit drivers or (to a lesser degree) programs, the stability difference was negligible - but Windows 95 ran equally well on 1/2 to 2/3 the hardware and had _vastly_ better compatibility.

    10. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by wgoodman · · Score: 3, Funny

      took about a day to get it on a 286..
      once installed, didn't really run though.

    11. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by jsebrech · · Score: 4, Interesting

      NT was substantially more advanced than OS/2. Multiuser, SMP capable, fully 32 bit, almost-a-microkernel, etc.

      This is the thing I never quite got. NT4 ran fine in 32 MB of ram, and it made 128 MB of ram seem infinite. And it did in fact multitask very well. I never understood why it was that XP had to be SO much heavier than NT, while still doing essentially the same stuff. I've always had this nagging feeling that the team that built NT4 really knew what they were doing, and that the guys that came after just weren't as good at their game.

    12. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
      Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
      Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
      Applicant: I like rape.

    13. Re:Why is OS/2 mentioned twice in the article? by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows 2000 works fine, as a superset of Windows 9x, in my experience at least. There doesn't seem to be much between 2000 and XP, apart from the annoying UI that we all disable.

  3. ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think anyone willingly uses Windows ME for any useful task anymore.

    1. Re:ME by daeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think anyone willingly uses Windows ME for any useful task anymore.

      Were they ever able to? ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:ME by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm using ME for a useful task - I have it on a PC in the garage that I'm using to prop up a pile of lumber.

      --
      No sig? Sigh...
    3. Re:ME by jgardia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, I have to deal with an embedded medical computer that runs WinME (It's designed to control a gamma probe). So, unfortunately, WinME is not completely dead.

    4. Re:ME by oatworm · · Score: 5, Funny

      I actually have a friend of mine that's still running Windows Me and - get this - accesses the Internet via an AOL dial-up account. When I asked him why he doesn't just get DSL or some other form of broadband, he said, "If I do that, I'll get viruses faster!" I really couldn't argue with that.

      It's not all bad, though. When he asked me to install AOL on his computer (under protest, mind you) and get him set up, I set up AOL to use pulse-dialing (think old-school rotary phone) when making its calls. It turns out that, once set, you can't unset that, so, every time he tries to get on to the Internet at home, he has to sit there and wait... "TICK-TICK-TICK-TICK... TICK-TICK-TICK... TICK-TICK-TICK-TICK-TICK..." and so on for about 45 seconds or so. I told him it was my way of getting even.

    5. Re:ME by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

      If only the same could be said of the users of said medical computers...

    6. Re:ME by orb_nsc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your friend is adorable.

    7. Re:ME by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think anyone willingly uses Windows ME for any useful task anymore.

      Were they ever able to? ;)

      I had a firewall machine with windows ME that had an uptime of over 3 months at one point. I then took it down for fear that breaking the laws of probability like that would cause the universe to fold in on itself.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    8. Re:ME by CrackedButter · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not dead yet, i'm getting better!

  4. Re:Yes, there is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Noone is using WIndows to do some real job.

    Who's Noone, and what's he/she using Windows for? Sounds fairly self-defeating, really; I mean, no one important is using it anymore, so Noone might need a new set of talents soon...

  5. What about the Abacus? by mini+me · · Score: 3, Funny

    The operating systems behind many abacuses have since passed away. May they rest in peace.

    1. Re:What about the Abacus? by Icegryphon · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is what you think!!!!!
      It is a very easy way to visualize numbers when you are trained to use one.
      Of Course, they get to the point where they create an imaginary one in there heads,
      hence you see them scratching on the table to solve equations.

  6. Re:VMS? by yincrash · · Score: 3, Informative

    Companies definitely still use VMS.

  7. Multics by riley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Never seen one, heard of an emulator, or know of one still running.

    1. Re:Multics by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've been officially dead before, twice actually. So that's no guarantee it's not around.
       

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Multics by Stratoukos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep. The last Multics installation closed in 2000, but they released the source under the MIT license in 2007.

      --
      It may be 7 digits, but at least it's a semiprime
  8. Multics by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Informative

    Multics is officially dead. The last site to be using it went offline almost nine years ago. Multics was open sourced two or three years ago, but I haven't heard of anybody taking advantage of that to try using it again.

  9. Re:VMS? by WinterSolstice · · Score: 5, Informative

    Surely you jest... since
    A) VMS is still in active use and development
    B) The "Open" in OpenVMS means it is POSIX compliant (and the term open has NOTHING to do with open source. It actually has many software patents)

    --
    An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
  10. Re:Yes, there is by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

    s/this afternoon//

    --
    I hate printers.
  11. RSX-11, RT-11 and RSTS/E by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Has there ever been a major OS that simply went away, period?

    I think RSX-11, RT-11 and RSTS/E fit that. Some of the PDP operating systems are dead probably because they're still closed source otherwise I'm guessing hobbyists would still be maintaining them.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:RSX-11, RT-11 and RSTS/E by KC1P · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I make my living supporting RT/RSX/RSTS customers so I can assure you they're alive (the copyrights are now held by Mentec). Hobbyists run them too -- telnet to mim.update.uu.se to see an RSX system. Maintenance -- well yeah they've been stagnant since the Y2K fixes went in, but so are the applications so changes would just break things at this point.

      And yes they're closed source as in, you can't just download the source for free, but the source was *available* for a fairly reasonable price (and it's *beautiful*, much more readable than any free stuff I've seen). Dunno what to call that but "closed source" is a little strong -- this isn't Windows by a long shot!

  12. Re:Long ago by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

    IBM 360/MFT and MVT

    They call it "z/OS" now.

  13. What has anyone Hird of the Hurd? by slickwillie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it still being developed?

    IIRC Linux was supposed to be a temporary stand-in until the Hurd was ready to go.

    1. Re:What has anyone Hird of the Hurd? by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hurd got to a state where it was actually usable - there was a Debian distro of it, you could run X, you could run various applications, it was *real*. But that version was based on the Mach microkernel. Since then they went down the route of porting to the L4 microkernel (generally considered faster but I suspect YMMV depending on design & implementation of what you run on top of it). That work had some interesting ideas but last rumour I'd heard was that they'd stopped *that* port and that someone was working on a new microkernel that better fit their needs.

      Hurd's design had nice features. For instance, it's fundamental to the design that users can replace OS components with their own, so custom userspace filesystems were easily supported. Linux gained this capability through FUSE but Hurd had it baked naturally into the design AFAIK.

      I'd be quite interested in playing with Hurd but my main issue is that I don't perceive there being a very cohesive effort around it now, so I wouldn't know how to contribute or whether it would help at all. That might *just* be my perception, however the project has manifestly been "on the way" for a very long time.

  14. Re:OS newbie by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are a lot of OSes which predate Unix, as well as many OSes since which have had a different lineage (VMS related stuff, such as Windows).

    For the most part, I suspect that the useful applications have predominantly lived on beyond the useful lives of the operating systems. That's typically how things work. The apps have been ported to the new OS, and lived on there. In a sense, the spirit of many older OSes - the good ideas - have lived on vicariously through these apps.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  15. Re:Yes, there is by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's Peter Noone, of Herman's Hermits. Like his performing career, it's still chugging along.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  16. I'm not even angry... by daspring · · Score: 4, Funny

    GLaDOS went away when I threw that b%$^& into the fire.

    1. Re:I'm not even angry... by Zenaku · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nope. Still Alive.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
  17. Re:Atari by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you kidding? TOS is still used through-out the computing industry. In fact its normally pretty big news when people make TOS modifications as they are behind some of the biggest pieces of software out there in the world.

    What people don't know is that the team behind TOS shifted its emphasis towards specialising in very hard to understand and complicated programmes that were designed to confuse those who read them, like Perl but with longer words. This new coding approach was then adopted by Lawyers everywhere which is why everyone now clearly states they have a "TOS" for their website/software/whatever.

    Over beer in 1993 an Atari developer was asked by someone what TOS stood for and jokingly said "Terms of Service". This name stuck, particularly with the lawyers and hence TOS now dominates as the underlying operating system for legal documents.

    What most people don't realise is that you can run "Chess Master 2000" on the Supreme Court.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  18. Re:Win 3.1 by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm posting from win3.1 because it uses so much less resources it is so much faster!

    Even if you use contemporary hardware. I fired up an old Win95 box a few months ago, and was startled by how much more responsive it was compared to the modern WinXP system I use at work. We've all been given the frog-in-pot-of-water treatment, learning to expect gradually more sluggish UIs.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  19. Re:Amiga OS is dead by shaitand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The amiga hardware was way ahead of its time and so was the software for that matter. The mac hardware was basically a weak copy of the amiga stuff. Apple basically just stuck with the amiga copy stuff and incremental improvements to it until they switch over to using PC hardware piece by piece. Today a mac is basically just a severely overpriced pc that you have to buy to be able to use a user friendly operating system.

    Where Amigas really shined was video editing. It was a very long time indeed before Amiga stopped being the tool of choice for video work. Everything up to the special effects on Babylon 5 were done with Amigas. After commadore died it took apple a long time to catch up with the Amiga.

  20. PRIMOS? by trash+eighty · · Score: 3, Informative

    How many Pr1mes are still in operation? I guess there may be 1-2 still around out there? PRIMOS was quite nice in some ways.

  21. Re:VMS? by Curlsman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Version 8.4 of OpenVMS for Integrity and Alpha is entering beta (field test) for prodution release early next year.
    h21007.www2.hp.com/portal/site/dspp/menuitem.863c3e4cbcdc3f3515b49c108973a801/?ciid=66a2aea9e2f73210VgnVCM100000a360ea10RCRD

    To be sure, this is about a year late, and HP has laid off most of the experienced team (including some original developers from the 1970's) moving development to India (where DEC has started development teams decades ago), so it's not as if this is HP's lead investment. I've met some of the Indian developers, and they seemed intelligent, interested in promoting VMS, and willing to learn new and unique skills specific to VMS (i.e. crash dump analysis).

    VAX/VMS is still at version 7.3, and will probably stay there, although patches are still being released.

    There is a free licensing program for non-commercial use for any VAX, Alpha, or Integrity system, including emulators (SIMH is free and supports VAX).
    www.openvmshobbyist.com

  22. Re:DOS and OS 9 by Henriok · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Last version of "classic" Mac OS Was 9.2.2. You might refer to 9.0.4 which was the last version of 9.0.x.

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
  23. What about Pick? by petrus4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My father used to be a programmer, and he first told me about Pick. It used a database as the filesystem; it was decades ahead of its' time.

    From what Dad said, its' inventor, Dick Pick, was a lot like Tesla, in that he was apparently very sensitive, and didn't want to widely market the system. So as a result, although it was used in a few places, it seems to have largely died on the vine.

    The single main reason why that is a shame, is because it may be the only working example we've ever had, of an OS with a true database filesystem. Nobody else, it seems, has really been able to do that to a fully working degree, yes; BeOS maybe, but it's the only other one if so.

    1. Re:What about Pick? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't get it? Why would a guy named "Dick Pick" be so sensitive?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  24. was going to say Plan 9, but by catmistake · · Score: 3, Informative
  25. OS/2 is now eComStation by MCRocker · · Score: 3, Informative

    A modified version of OS/2 is still being sold by Serenity Systems as eComStation.

    --
    Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
  26. A/UX is gone by mfnickster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Has there ever been a major OS that simply went away, period?"

    How about A/UX - that went away when the Power Macs arrived. There are a handful of machines on the net still running it.

    It's debatable whether you could call it a "major OS," but it's an SVR variant (definitely major) with BSD extensions. It was a reliable and highly-polished OS sold by a major vendor. Today, you'd have to get it on eBay along with the 680x0 Mac to run it.

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  27. Re:Win 3.1 by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even if you use contemporary hardware. I fired up an old Win95 box a few months ago, and was startled by how much more responsive it was compared to the modern WinXP system I use at work. We've all been given the frog-in-pot-of-water treatment, learning to expect gradually more sluggish UIs.

    I know this is probably going to be perceived as flamebait, but... this is only true if by "we've all" you mean "all us Windows users". It certainly hasn't been my experience with the various major releases of OS X (10.2 through 10.6) - on the same hardware, each release has been faster. Well, there was one exception... 10.5.0 Leopard was unusually buggy for an Apple release, and those bugs were irritating enough that I didn't notice any relative performance changes versus 10.4, one way or the other.

    As far as the Linux desktop goes, my only experience was back when gnome moved from gtk to gtk2 (gnome versions 1.4 to 2 IIRC) - that particular upgrade did support your statement.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  28. Apple II by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 3, Informative

    This morning I watched an episode of How It's Made and they were showing how the paper rolls for player pianos were still being made today. They showed some guy playing a special piano that made marks on a roll of paper with rods that came down onto carbon copy stuff which made marks on the paper underneath it. And then they showed a more modern approach that had a guy playing on an electronic keyboard that was presumably hooked up to the computer there via midi. But the kicker was what was done with that data once it was on that computer. They said it was transfered to another computer to do the actual manufacturing of the final paper rolls, and they cut to some guy inserting a 5-1/4" floppy into one of the old external Apple floppy drives, and then he leaned over and did some typing on an Apple II sitting beside the cutting machine, which then proceeded to cut the holes into the paper as it was fed through. Couldn't believe it.

  29. Amiga died, and a cynic was born by ChefInnocent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I will admit, I loved my Amiga. It was my only friend. It was awesome in its day. I held the banner of Amiga zealot proudly until '95.

    Today, I see the Mac fanbois and Linux zealots, and I harbor scorn and envy. There is no platform that deserves such a pedestal. Not just because the Amiga died, but through it's death I could see the world for the cold place it is. OSes & manufacturers will come and go. Apple will die, and Linux will fade. I know not when, but they will. Yet, I am envious of the fanaticism these people hold. The joy they get from the belief their system is superior to all else. I remember when I had faith in Commodore and wish for those days of old.

    Today, I move quietly from machine to machine and hold no special attachment to any OS. They are all the same despite their differences.

    Once. A few years ago. There was a brief moment I thought I heard the song of BSD, but I turned around and it was just a wrinkled old harlot clearing her throat.

    No, the Amiga died, and so did my passion. I miss my old friend, but there will be no more friends like her. Now we only visit -- in the still of the night -- when I am fast asleep.

  30. Yes by tyggna · · Score: 3, Funny

    Windows--in my head. Took several counseling sessions and intense electro-shock therapy, but my therapist says the scars are slowly healing.

  31. I was there man... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, I remember back in the day using BeOS and being completely floored by it, for about ten minutes. Here was a new OS and it was super fast at some of the tasks that made computers really grind to a halt back then. And it was stable. Remember, this was back when we were all rebooting our Windows boxes once a day at least while doing real work. Macs were better for stability, but only let one program do real work at a time. Unix boxes were rock solid, but it was rare to find one that had crazy advanced features like color display. Linux was rock solid to, but it took a smart guy a non-trivial amount of time to get one actually working.

    In comparison to the available options it was almost hard to believe. The only real reason not to use it was lack of applications, which is what I realized in short order. A few dozen actually usable programs were about it. Still, if some companies had jumped on it and pre-installed it would have dragged the computing world half a decade or more into the future. Microsoft killed it with threats and legal action against any company who dared dual install it beside Windows or who even wanted to keep selling Windows and sell BeOS too. If ever there was a time for the feds to step in, that was it, but Be was a tiny company and the niche for an alternative vertically integrated system was taken by Apple. That one instance of shady dealing on MS's part crippled OS development and made it clear to everyone there was no point investing in the desktop OS market. If something so obviously superior, already in a stable and running form couldn't compete against MS's hold on vendors, what was the point in wasting money?

    Seeing this just makes me angry all over again how corporate greed and crime has held back progress. Screw you early 90's MS execs. I hope you tell your kids how you managed to cripple OS development around the world with your crimes.

    1. Re:I was there man... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't blame Microsoft for BeOS. That company made so many strategic mistakes, I wouldn't be able to even list them all.

      Microsoft's best tactic is doing very little and letting their competitors fail through their own mistakes, that's how they've gained most of their market share.

  32. I'm surprised... by ak_hepcat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    nobody's mentioned the Apollo boxes..

    Domain OS was... well, weird.

    --
    Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
  33. 4 8 15 16 23 42 by bradvoy · · Score: 3, Funny

    There's this island somewhere in the Pacific where they still use Apple II's to keep the world from ending. From the screenshots I've seen they don't appear to be running the old Apple OS on them, though.