Obscure and Obsolete Operating Systems - Page 3

fref99 · 22nd February 2009, 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phool

CP/M was different to CPM-86 wasnt it?

CPM ram on Z80 based systems, CPM/86 ran on intel 8086 systems. The command were identical (pip,hdmaint etc) but the 86 version has access to 640Kb code space while CPM only had 64Kb.

I still have an only Siemens PG730 in the celler, my company needs it to maintain a really old Siemens S5 with WF470 "visualisation system".

Regards
FREF99

0oBelialo0 · 22nd February 2009, 11:14 PM

BeOS is about the most obscure I've played with. I only ever had the 'slow' version that you had to boot from Windows, but man, I LOVED that OS. With all the hardware improvements over the last 10 years I still haven't used anything that's as responsive.

Such a shame it died, it truly was awesome.

Of course, I couldn't get my winmodem to work, so it was of limited use

Ben

grue · 23rd February 2009, 9:13 AM

On my old Apple Network Server 700 back in the day, we ran AIX.

Crinos · 23rd February 2009, 9:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0oBelialo0

BeOS is about the most obscure I've played with. I only ever had the 'slow' version that you had to boot from Windows, but man, I LOVED that OS. With all the hardware improvements over the last 10 years I still haven't used anything that's as responsive.

Such a shame it died, it truly was awesome.

Of course, I couldn't get my winmodem to work, so it was of limited use

Ben

http://www.haiku-os.org/

This could be a real contender if it keeps going and properly supports software like Firefox and Openoffice.

tee. · 23rd February 2009, 10:17 AM

I still use beos most days. It's kinda fun trying to get things to work, like msn. you can get most internet related stuff to work with a bit of a play.

have it running on a dual p3 1ghz with 1gb ram and a gforce 5700, it IS extremely responsive, when it works

0oBelialo0 · 23rd February 2009, 1:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crinos

http://www.haiku-os.org/

This could be a real contender if it keeps going and properly supports software like Firefox and Openoffice.

Yeah, I've seen haiku. Haven't pulled down the vm yet, but will at some stage.

The biggest issue they're going to have is that it looks ancient. During the Win98 era it looked nice, but things have moved on a lot since then. Once they get it up and running, they'll need to do a lot of polishing.

Ben

scruff · 23rd February 2009, 9:45 PM

Is it just me, or do pretty much all of the os'* in this thread look 99.9% identical? None of them seem to have any original ideas past "zomg we hate microsoft".

They all seem to have the same basic the icons go here and the display settings go here things... so unless you were building an OS for the academic challenge of building an OS, or wanted one for a specific use, why would these people bother if they're not going to add anything new? Seems like a waste of time to me.

* Of course by OS, I mean WM, since the OS is really just a scheduler and executer..

stmok · 23rd February 2009, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scruff

Is it just me, or do pretty much all of the os'* in this thread look 99.9% identical? None of them seem to have any original ideas past "zomg we hate microsoft".

They all seem to have the same basic the icons go here and the display settings go here things... so unless you were building an OS for the academic challenge of building an OS, or wanted one for a specific use, why would these people bother if they're not going to add anything new? Seems like a waste of time to me.

* Of course by OS, I mean WM, since the OS is really just a scheduler and executer..

The best analogy I can give is: "Its not what she's wearing. Its what's behind those eyes."

They generally look the same on the outside, but they're implemented differently for a specific goal in mind.

Then again, the desktop OS idea has largely hit a limit...We're up to the point that even free solutions will start to creep into areas that have long been dominated by commercial solutions. (In the future, this will become more prevalent).

scruff · 23rd February 2009, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmok

The best analogy I can give is: "Its not what she's wearing. Its what's behind those eyes."

They generally look the same on the outside, but they're implemented differently for a specific goal in mind.

Yeah, I get that. That's why I had the footnote on my post.

In terms of UI, very very very little has changed. Seems kind of redundant all this work going into weird projects, some times.

Loser · 24th February 2009, 2:41 AM

Nextstep from 1 to 4 beta

rtscts · 24th February 2009, 5:46 AM

System/55. Was one of the types of terminals in our old SII/Tandem based publishing system back in the 90s. They had huge, high DPI greyscale monitors for page layout and interfaced with the mainframe backend. It was pretty freaky being so advanced yet so old-skool at the same time.

newmarket · 24th February 2009, 8:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tin

The ones I've tried:

DOS 3.x + Win1.0 (I've also used DOS5 and 6 and Win2, 3 and 3.1x)

I'm not sure that DOS counts as obscure, but Windows 1.0 does!

Certainly OS/2 was a very solid OS, one of the only ones that I'd consider VM'ing for nostaglia sake. Wasn't OS/2 the birth child of a collaboration between IBM and MS and somehow related to Windows 2??

Cheers and thanks for the memories!

22nd February 2009, 11:14 PM	#32
0oBelialo0 Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Canberra Posts: 4,013	BeOS is about the most obscure I've played with. I only ever had the 'slow' version that you had to boot from Windows, but man, I LOVED that OS. With all the hardware improvements over the last 10 years I still haven't used anything that's as responsive. Such a shame it died, it truly was awesome. Of course, I couldn't get my winmodem to work, so it was of limited use Ben __________________ "A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done" - Pratchett Blog \| RedBubble \| Gear \| Kiva.org - Loans That Change Lives

23rd February 2009, 9:13 AM	#33
grue Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 67	On my old Apple Network Server 700 back in the day, we ran AIX. __________________ I have a computer. It does things.

23rd February 2009, 10:17 AM	#35
tee. Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Melbourne Posts: 114	I still use beos most days. It's kinda fun trying to get things to work, like msn. you can get most internet related stuff to work with a bit of a play. have it running on a dual p3 1ghz with 1gb ram and a gforce 5700, it IS extremely responsive, when it works __________________ They have the internet on computers now?! Crappy Photos Extraordinaire!

24th February 2009, 5:46 AM	#41
rtscts Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Sydney Posts: 2,946	System/55. Was one of the types of terminals in our old SII/Tandem based publishing system back in the 90s. They had huge, high DPI greyscale monitors for page layout and interfaced with the mainframe backend. It was pretty freaky being so advanced yet so old-skool at the same time. __________________ Opportunity knocks, karma hunts you down.

23rd February 2009, 9:45 PM	#37
scruff RIP Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Melbourne Posts: 3,452	Is it just me, or do pretty much all of the os'* in this thread look 99.9% identical? None of them seem to have any original ideas past "zomg we hate microsoft". They all seem to have the same basic the icons go here and the display settings go here things... so unless you were building an OS for the academic challenge of building an OS, or wanted one for a specific use, why would these people bother if they're not going to add anything new? Seems like a waste of time to me. * Of course by OS, I mean WM, since the OS is really just a scheduler and executer..

24th February 2009, 2:41 AM	#40
Loser Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 206	Nextstep from 1 to 4 beta