Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Software Technology

Old Operating Systems Never Die 875

Posted by timothy
from the they-just-start-running-in-loops dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Old Operating Systems Never Die

Comments Filter:
  • MacOS 9 (Score:5, Funny)

    by tetsukaze (1635797) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:01PM (#29456237)
    Apple hires hit men to track down users and kill them
    • Re:MacOS 9 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mikael_j (106439) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:30PM (#29456787)

      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

      • Re:MacOS 9 (Score:5, Informative)

        by iamhassi (659463) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:41PM (#29457023) Journal
        "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 [floodgap.com] browser might have changed all that. I'll have to dig out the iMac and see how it does.
      • Re:MacOS 9 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tetsukaze (1635797) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:43PM (#29457063)
        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.
        • Re:MacOS 9 (Score:4, Interesting)

          by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968&gmail,com> on Thursday September 17, 2009 @05:16PM (#29459109) Journal

          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 [litepc.com] 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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Enderandrew (866215)

        The user should look up the Mozilla Firefox ports to OS 9.

      • Re:MacOS 9 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by joeyblades (785896) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:56PM (#29457237)

        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)

        • Re:MacOS 9 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:59PM (#29458099) Journal
          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.
      • Re:MacOS 9 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968&gmail,com> on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:47PM (#29457945) Journal

        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?

    • Re:MacOS 9 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Yvan256 (722131) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:30PM (#29456801) Homepage Journal

      Did you receive the fax about the IE6 users?

  • by natehoy (1608657) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:01PM (#29456255) Journal

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

    • by Eudial (590661) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:04PM (#29456309)

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Yvan256 (722131)

        See, that's why IBM lost and Microsoft won. IBM was stupid enough to divide their OS in two while Microsoft started with a multiple of 95. The problem is, though, that Microsoft lost their train of thought and are back at OS * 7, but still.

    • by gmuslera (3436) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:16PM (#29456559) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dingen (958134)

        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.

        • by jedidiah (1196) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:36PM (#29456905) Homepage

          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).

        • by guruevi (827432) <<evi> <at> <smokingcube.be>> on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:53PM (#29457193) Homepage

          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.

          • by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy.gmail@com> on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:21PM (#29457597)

            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.

        • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:54PM (#29457209)

          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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by natehoy (1608657)

        I still have my Warp discs, and remember OS/2 VERY fondly. It was my desktop OS at work for a number of years, and was absolutely and utterly groundbreaking for its day. The rest of the company was on DOS and Windows 3.11, and I could run both of them as virtual machines on top of OS/2. All that on a "top end" 386SX. :)

        Then Windows 95 came out a year later, based on largely the same codebase, and everyone flocked to it. I was sad, because OS/2 was a vastly superior OS, but since the company decided to g

      • by MCRocker (461060) * on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:53PM (#29457191) Homepage
        A modified version of OS/2 is still being sold by Serenity Systems as eComStation [ecomstation.com].
      • by Jurily (900488) <jurily@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:01PM (#29457325)

        (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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SCHecklerX (229973)

        Yup. I would love a WPS on linux. Elegant. Consistent. Extensible objects. Also, when you moved a file that something on your desktop pointed to, it knew about it and changed the desktop object accordingly. Nothing else does that as well to this day.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @04:53PM (#29458811)

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

  • ME (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:03PM (#29456279)

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

  • by AmigaHeretic (991368) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:04PM (#29456301) Journal
    TOS. Enough said!

    /me ducks and covers in preparation for a massive flaming form all the ST users out there! ;-)
    • Re:Atari (Score:5, Funny)

      by MosesJones (55544) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:31PM (#29456813) Homepage

      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.

  • by mini me (132455) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:05PM (#29456329)

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

    • by Icegryphon (715550) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:11PM (#29456435)
      That is what you think [youtube.com]!!!!!
      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Chris Mattern (191822)

      You've obviously never been down to your local Chinatown (assuming you have one). The abacus is still alive and well in a lot of places. Somebody who really knows how to use one can beat out most people with a calculator, simply because the calculator-user can't punch the keys fast enough.

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:06PM (#29456351) Homepage

    TRS-DOS for a TRS80 model 12

    Holy crap that's a PITA to find even an image of a disk to find online.

  • Multics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by riley (36484) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:06PM (#29456353)
    Never seen one, heard of an emulator, or know of one still running.
  • Multics (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chris Mattern (191822) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:09PM (#29456407)

    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.

  • Long ago (Score:3, Informative)

    by homey of my owney (975234) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:09PM (#29456415)
    IBM 360/MFT and MVT
  • ITS? (Score:3, Informative)

    by wandazulu (265281) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:11PM (#29456447)

    The Incompatible TimeShare system of MIT yore, as I understand it, is truly no more, unless somebody's been *extra* *careful* to keep their PDP-6 in working order all these years.

    Oh well, at least we got the Jargon file out of it.

  • Bob (Score:3, Informative)

    by Stenchwarrior (1335051) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:14PM (#29456499)
    Microsoft had one [wikipedia.org] that never made it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tumbleweed (3706) *

      Microsoft had one that never made it.

      I'm pretty sure Bob was reincarnated as Clippy.

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:14PM (#29456509) Journal

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

    I think RSX-11 [wikipedia.org], RT-11 [wikipedia.org] and RSTS/E [wikipedia.org] 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SnarfQuest (469614)

      These OS's can be run using an emulator (simh for example), and there are sites still running these in production.

    • by KC1P (907742) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:33PM (#29456865) Homepage

      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!

  • by slickwillie (34689) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:16PM (#29456553)

    Is it still being developed?

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jeremy Erwin (2054)
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by oatworm (969674)
      Oh, it's still around [gnu.org]. In fact, Debian even maintains a distribution [gnu.org] for it. That said, my understanding is that stability and performance are still rather miserable.
    • by Lemming Mark (849014) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:03PM (#29457339) Homepage

      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.

  • by daspring (1589413) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:30PM (#29456789)
    GLaDOS went away when I threw that b%$^& into the fire.
  • ITS (Score:3, Informative)

    by Coeurderoy (717228) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:40PM (#29457009)

    The English version of the ITS wikipedia entry claims that there are still a couple of machines running ITS....
    Anybody knows where ? I miss my MIT-AI ITS account ;-)

    It not, ... check out http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00117.html [poppyfields.net]

    Cheers :-)

  • PRIMOS? (Score:4, Informative)

    by trash eighty (457611) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:45PM (#29457085) Homepage

    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.

  • What about Pick? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by petrus4 (213815) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:48PM (#29457119) Homepage Journal

    My father used to be a programmer, and he first told me about Pick [wikipedia.org]. 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.

  • by catmistake (814204) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:50PM (#29457147) Journal
    apparently it's still available [bell-labs.com] and according to wiki it's still being maintained and used [wikipedia.org]
  • A/UX is gone (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mfnickster (182520) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @02:58PM (#29457285)

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

    How about A/UX [applefritter.com] - 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.

  • by kenp2002 (545495) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:16PM (#29457517) Homepage Journal

    There are still a few BBS's I used to sysop that still are running the combination of DOS/Quarterdeck QEMM/DESQview combo running on 28.8 dialup (for the purests) and TCP/IP backends (for telnet access.) Oh the memory but DESQview was damn near an OS and a few have custom handbuild OS subsystems for their BBS. Suprisingly it wasn't that hard to write up a custom BBS system back then. There are still a few PC\DOS PS1 gateway (as in gateway services, not the brand) boxes out there.

    Renegade 4 EVAH! EAT IT WILDCAT AND YOU PROBOARD WEAK SAUCED POSERS!!! ACiD > TRiBE iCE MUAHAAHHAAHHH the ANSI wars are ONE!! BWHAHHAHAAA errr.. crap I'm old...

  • Apple II (Score:4, Informative)

    by _Shorty-dammit (555739) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:18PM (#29457541)

    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.

  • Yes (Score:3, Funny)

    by tyggna (1405643) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:20PM (#29457577)
    Windows--in my head. Took several counseling sessions and intense electro-shock therapy, but my therapist says the scars are slowly healing.
  • I was there man... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:22PM (#29457611)

    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.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @05:40PM (#29459407)

      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.

  • NOS (Score:3, Funny)

    by ChronoFish (948067) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:30PM (#29457703) Journal

    My freshman year at CSU the CS department retired their Cyber Mainframe running NOS. We joked that it stood for "No OS".

    You can find an emulator for the Cyber - even so it doesn't come with the OS (in this case it is truely "No OS"):

    http://members.iinet.net.au/~tom-hunter/ [iinet.net.au]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_Cyber [wikipedia.org]

    -CF

  • GEC OS4000 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MROD (101561) on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:33PM (#29457723) Homepage

    The operating system which practically powered the core of the British pre-Internet academic network was (SERCnet/JANET) GEC OS4000 [wikipedia.org],which run upon GEC minicomputers.

    The strangest thing about it was that half of the OS was implemented in hardware as part of the CPU.

  • I'm surprised... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ak_hepcat (468765) <leifNO@SPAMdenali.net> on Thursday September 17, 2009 @03:49PM (#29457959) Homepage Journal

    nobody's mentioned the Apollo boxes..

    Domain OS was... well, weird.

Pause for storage relocation.

Working...