Modern OS?

[yssing]

Now I have seen the notion "modern OS" several times.
I am getting a little confused (not really), but what is a modern OS? what does it require to be modern?

Surely it can't be surfing the net, that is not something the OS does. Is it all kind of eye candy? multi user OS? please do tell.

[jorkany]

Operating systems in popular usage which are still being maintained and support the features and hardware you would expect a current OS to support (SMP, Multiuser, memory management, to some extent hardware virtualization, up-to-date hardware standards, etc.) Primarily Windows, Linux, OS X and iOS, Android, etc.

In short, OSes which people are coming to, not those which people are running away from.

[AJCopland]

When presented in relation to something like Amiga OS it usually just means memory protection and/or hardware abstraction layers/APIs.

Then depending on the OS it's being compared too you can add kernel (monolithic etc) type and people personal preference, multi-processor (/core) support, choice of process scheduler for the various single/multi-processor options etc.

[dammy]

Operating systems in popular usage which are still being maintained and support the features and hardware you would expect a current OS to support (SMP, Multiuser, memory management, to some extent hardware virtualization, up-to-date hardware standards, etc.) Primarily Windows, Linux, OS X and iOS, Android, etc.

In short, OSes which people are coming to, not those which people are running away from.

Or look at it at a consumer's point of view, any OS that supports the apps they want to run on consumer grade (and priced) systems, be it a smartphone, tablet, notebook, or desktop.  If you can't run on all those items, your future is limited, very limited.

[takemehomegrandma]

@ jorkany, dammy

Stop making sense!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

:roflmao:

[kedawa]

Ms-dos

[yssing]

In short, OSes which people are coming to, not those which people are running away from.

So what defines it, is what the user want?

Dammy >> IMHO apps has nothing to do with an OS being modern, apps has something to do with apps.

[hooligan]

So what defines it, is what the user want?

Dammy >> IMHO apps has nothing to do with an OS being modern, apps has something to do with apps.

DirectX (for example) is a part of modern OS, no DX, a lot less apps.

[persia]

DirectX is a Microsoft product, the approximate open source equivalent is OpenGL.  But your point is well taken, without an API to support 2D and 3D graphics, you aren't going to convince many developers to create software for your OS.

[commodorejohn]

The "modern OS" is defined as whichever OS the poster thinks AmigaOS should be instead of AmigaOS.

[Thorham]

In short, OSes which people are coming to, not those which people are running away from.

That would mean that even an OS that's a century ahead of it's time would be old fashioned if no one used it :rolleyes:

[Pentad]

Now I have seen the notion "modern OS" several times.
I am getting a little confused (not really), but what is a modern OS? what does it require to be modern?

Surely it can't be surfing the net, that is not something the OS does. Is it all kind of eye candy? multi user OS? please do tell.

Well, I believe that a modern OS should have memory protection and segment the user space to make the OS more stable and secure.

The AmigaOS (1.0 to 3.x) was dependent on applications and programmers to write 'good citizen' code:  The application would play nicely with the OS and other apps.    

This would not fly today.  You have to be very defensive to protect the OS and the user from malicious software.  I'm not just talking malware and viruses but code that tries to steal your information/accounts/passwords/etc...

I think we are seeing that security is moving from a bolt on system (like putting guards outside your castle) to including security at the core OS (guards patrolling inside the castle).  Lastly, segregation and sandboxing code from the OS.

Cheers!
-P

[jorkany]

That would mean that even an OS that's a century ahead of it's time would be old fashioned if no one used it :rolleyes:

Correct. Modern is defined by cultural activity around something new and nontraditional. If there is no cultural interest, it is not modern by definition. If a century from now someone discovered your hypothetical OS and began using it or incorporating it's features into other OSes and it then had a cultural impact, it would be modern.

The Newton is a good example of this. The Newton itself is not considered modern today, however some of its features are modern.

[Digiman]

Modern OS =

Ability to play every kind of digital media format for Audio/Video/Images/Text
Ability to surf the internet/design sites with every defined standard for page definition supported in your browser available.
Ability to download and upload data via peer-to-peer network standards
Ability to use SKYPE/MSN networks for chat/video chat.
Ability to use a sophisticated office suite (WP/SS/TM/EC)
Ability to display 3D with a graphical sophistication >= PS3/360 @ 1080p
Ability to connect to all mass produced add-on hardware types (USB MP3 players/cameras/Webcams etc)
Ability to run the majority of applications currently sold/freely downloadable etc

IMO that's what it means. ie it does not impede your use of the computer via the choice of OS you have chosen to use. Sure NextSTEP 3 can run your business just as well as a host of Windows based networked computers but that's why it's such a meaningless phrase in some cases. There are things NextSTEP does that Windows 2008 still does not, useful things too.

[yssing]

Digiman >> All those mentioned have nothing to do with the OS but are depending on applications.