What is the least successful OS ever sold?

[XDelusion]

What about POS for the Amiga?. Was that even a real OS?.

I used to own a CD of that. Got it at the Columbus OHIO Amiga show back when Petro was still around. He was there in fact.

Anyhow it was a bit resource intensive on my old 68030 Amiga 2000, but it ran... though the only software that existed for it, was what was on the disk.


There is an ISO of it on EAB.

[save2600]

How successful was C64's GEOS? Did people purchase this separately in numbers or was it mainly just a pack-in for the C64c that most of us never used back in the day?  :lol:

[trekiej]

I bought Geos for the C64. I liked it. I do not know how well it went. I think it was fairly popular. http://www.bombjack.org/commodore could show how popular it was by looking at how many magazines had content for it.

[gertsy]

I bought Geos for the C64. I liked it. I do not know how well it went. I think it was fairly popular. http://www.bombjack.org/commodore could show how popular it was by looking at how many magazines had content for it.

I used Geos and Jane on my C128 for a good couple of years before I got my first Amiga.
There are probably lots of OS that were unsuccessful that we will never know of (ipso facto)  
I'd have to say MSDOS 4 which I think was more damned than Windows ME as an OS.
MS DOS 4 was so buggy on many machines it was un-usable.  I remember people went back to DOS 3.3 in droves.

[A6000]

If any of us has heard of it, then it is not obscure enough to be the least successful OS.
I would guess maybe heathkit's HDOS since users had to build their computers and few could afford the disk system, if not then you would have to go back to the proprietary OS's of the mid '70s to early '80s.
How about Forth which was meant to be an operating system, wasn't it?
How successful was TRIPOS before it was used as the basis for Amigaos?

[save2600]

How about OS-9 for the Coco 3?

[B00tDisk]

How about OS-9 for the Coco 3?

OS/9 is still used in a few commercial applications; I'd wager it has a larger installed userbase than OS4.

[B00tDisk]

GEOS user here - even bought a mouse for my c64 to use it "better".  Loved GEOS.

[Heiroglyph]

Man, I came here to say pOS and someone beat me to it.

I did a little searching and found out that it wasn't a full OS.  What we saw ran on top of AOS so that pre-release was more of a Workbench replacement.

They apparently went on to finish and sell it to industrial/embedded customers, so it may have a larger installed base than we thought.

[Linde]

How about Forth which was meant to be an operating system, wasn't it?

Well, Forth isn't really a single thing, but some implementations are self-contained. Not very useful as an OS for the average desktop computer user, but it had (and still has) its applications.

[Nostalgiac]

I used Geos and Jane on my C128 for a good couple of years before I got my first Amiga.

Same here - GEOS on my c128 - even made some little programs for it myself. Great little OS

Tom UK

[smerf]

What is the least successful commercial proprietary desktop OS ever sold?

Not the OS in your lawnmower, not open source, and not free. Also not a "fantasy OS" like AInc. OS5 which was never actually sold (and probably never existed).
There's been quite a few over the years but only one will be The Least Successful! Which is it in your opinion?

Hi,

I would venture to say Apricot DOS, Can't even imagine a lot of these machines being sold.

smerf

[Iggy]

How about OS-9 for the Coco 3?

WHAT? Not only was that reasonably successful, but there is still a open source version of it available for download called NitrOS.
I don't think you want to use an OS that sold tens of thousands of copies as an example of an unsuccessful OS.

By the way, I can point to groups that are still using and developing under this.

Also, come to think of it, just a couple months ago I saw an announcement that Radisys (which bought OS9 from Microware) was releasing an update for 68K version for OS9.

Further OS9 is still available for many platforms. The X86 version is very popular in the process control market.

You sir, have no clue what you are talking about.

[CritAnime]

I have thought, and always will think, that Windows ME is the worst, nay atrocious, OS I have ever had the misfortune to use. It was buggy, slow, leaked memory, blue-screened, died more times than super meat boy and ate resources like it was going out of fashion.

[Iggy]

I have thought, and always will think, that Windows ME is the worst, nay atrocious, OS I have ever had the misfortune to use. It was buggy, slow, leaked memory, blue-screened, died more times than super meat boy and ate resources like it was going out of fashion.

Personally, I had no more problems with Me then I did with 98. Most of the problems you list are present in both OS'.
Me had more device drivers on the install CD and virtually all this CD's content was loaded on to the computer's hard drive. That meant that when you installed new hardware you didn't have to put the OS CD into your computer.

With all the vitriolic comments, you'd think ME was a new operating system. In reality it was little more than a slightly enhanced 98.

[Minuous]

@CritAnime:

Ha, so it was just like every other version of Windoze then ;-)