Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: VingtTrois on February 27, 2011, 10:33:51 AM
-
http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.370641/tio-operativsystem-vi-minns
or
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.idg.se%2F2.1085%2F1.370641%2Ftio-operativsystem-vi-minns
AmigaOS - All-purpose
(http://www.idg.se/polopoly_fs/1.370645!imageManager/2582562749.jpg)
GEOS - did C64 serious
(http://www.idg.se/polopoly_fs/1.370646!imageManager/2177460484.jpg)
-
I forgot about GEOS. :-)
I don't think Win95 could ever be called OS/2's 'half brother'.
It was basically DOS + Windows3 (32bit) modded to look like it was a gui not cli.
I guess NT was OS/2's half brother - IBM and MS worked on OS/2 together, but when Windows 3.1 was so popular, MS ditched OS/2 and hired a bunch of VMS gurus to develop Windows NT in competition with OS/2.
-
GEOS, yeah I did spend quite some time with that :)
-
>the company decided to Pray for creating its own operating system for the Mac platform.
Eh, WTF???? :-D
-
Ten disk operating systems? Not nearly enough.
Having worked with Tandy, how about TRS-DOS, Xenix, OS-9?
Linux's predecessor Minux?
CPM? How about MPM?
I've used more OS' that aren't on that list than are.
-
I have to preface this comment with, I am not a Microsoft nor Windows fan-boy. Generally I get accused for being one when I make this next statement.
I don't think Win95 could ever be called OS/2's 'half brother'.
It was basically DOS + Windows3 (32bit) modded to look like it was a gui not cli.
I tire of hearing this tripe. This could be said for earlier versions of Windows, but not 95. While 95 maintained a close relationship to DOS, it was much more than a simple graphical shell and did not run on top of DOS as it is often accused.
Having said that, GEOS and GEOS 128 were my staple platforms for many many years. I used to write papers for elementary school in geoWrite, and was pretty much the only kid doing so. I was, however, admonished by at least one teacher, stating that it was important for me to learn handwriting skills. Mind you, if you turn in a hand-written paper these days, there MUST be something wrong with you.
So, that was from about 1986-ish to 1993 when I made my full transition to the Amiga. Then in mid-2000 I started with my own Windows-based machines but still using my Amigas. Sadly, I never got a good geoWrite-like word processor for the Amiga, I just used WordPerfect.
I never liked MacOS or the Mac. It always just seemed like a toy to me. Compared to GEOS on my 64, I looked at the Mac and thought, I can do that crap on my 64.
Then there is X. I find this intriguing.
Do not add new functionality if you are not aware of any existing application that requires it.
With that kind of mentality, a graphical shell like X should never had existed since even at the time no application required it. Seems to me that the only way this credo would work is if X and other applications are developed in parallel. I realize the need to avoid feature creep and bloat. Perhaps I miss something?
-
Ten disk operating systems? Not nearly enough.
Having worked with Tandy, how about TRS-DOS, Xenix, OS-9?
Linux's predecessor Minux?
CPM? How about MPM?
I've used more OS' that aren't on that list than are.
Same here, but I think the goal of the article was to hit the big "main stream" OSs (not necessarily DOSs) which were the kind to be written of in popular magazines and texts.
Minix, MPM, VMS, and the rest will be relegated to the annals of geek history. We will become Keepers of the Ancient OS Knowledge(TM) and will be able to impart upon students, or weary park-goers, the things which once were, the original pillars of what is now.
Of course, speaking of OSs which came before the Great God Jobs or Great God Gates will be put us in the category of heretic or kook, and there will be enormous fights about what to put into the classroom text books -- were the Great Operating Systems(TM) created, or did they evolve? Future scholars will debate not the principles of the arguments, but the events surrounding the arguments themselves.
-
I think I had rather read something about a PDP or VAX machine than the link above.
-
I tire of hearing this tripe. This could be said for earlier versions of Windows, but not 95. While 95 maintained a close relationship to DOS, it was much more than a simple graphical shell and did not run on top of DOS as it is often accused.
Not true. While 95 is the basis for all Windows versions from Win95 to WinME, it is still a GUI over top of DOS.
DOS isn't replaced until products that use the NT kernel are introduced.
-
Not true. While 95 is the basis for all Windows versions from Win95 to WinME, it is still a GUI over top of DOS.
DOS isn't replaced until products that use the NT kernel are introduced.
Incorrect. The Windows Kernel is the primary sub-system for the entire operating system, with DOS running a within what is essentially a virtual machine with access to underlying hardware via direct mapping through Windows itself. When Windows is active the initial DOS system is no longer available and relegated to simply a driver interface.
This hybridized architecture has a lot to do with why many DOS real-mode drivers, in particular CD-ROM drivers, were able to be used within Windows 9x, but access to those devices was limited as 16-bit. Functional protected-mode Windows 32-bit drivers were always the preferred option.
The purpose was to maintain as much compatibility with 16-bit DOS and Windows 3.x applications as possible.
-
I tire of hearing this tripe.
You're the one talking tripe.
DOS 6.2/Win3.12(32bit), Win95 and Win98 were basically the same thing. From Win95 onwards the system was made to look like it was a native gui but in reality it just ran on DOS 7. DOS 7 was developed from DOS 6 to better integrate with windows and to kill the market for alt. Doses like DRDOS. MS didn't lose DOS until consumer windows merged with nt (Windows 2000).
-
You're the one talking tripe.
DOS 6.2/Win3.12(32bit), Win95 and Win98 were basically the same thing. From Win95 onwards the system was made to look like it was a native gui but in reality it just ran on DOS 7. DOS 7 was developed from DOS 6 to better integrate with windows and to kill the market for alt. Doses like DRDOS. MS didn't lose DOS until consumer windows merged with nt (Windows 2000).
Nope. LoadWB had it right.
-
Besides AmigaOS, I fondly remember this other nine ones:
OS/2
(http://joseluis.maquieira.info/imagenes/os2-40-4.jpg)
BeOS
(http://i41.tinypic.com/vfja6u.jpg)
RiscOS
(http://www.renan.org/Acorn/pix/desktop2.gif)
Atari with GEM
(http://jeff.rainbow-100.com/other/gem/AtariGEM.jpg)
NextStep
(http://www.ohlfs.com/keith/self/next/ns_shot1.jpg)
SkyOS
(http://linuxreflejo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/skyos.jpg)
Irix
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Irix_6.5.30_desk.png)
Apple IIgs - GS/OS
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/AppleIIGSOS.png)
Coherent (A true Unix System VII)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Coherent_4.2.10_installer_screenshot.png)
-
Thunk...
when it goes from 32 bits to 16 bits.
-
BeOS/Haiku, my other love!
-
Besides AmigaOS, I fondly remember this other nine ones:
I understand RISCOS was actually pretty damn cool. I have never really enjoyed GEM (in fact, I somewhat abhor the ST.) And I only saw GS/OS once, and I am intrigued.