Talk:Operating system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 History section moved 2 Definition of OS 3 File ownership and Superuser 4 Stuff removed 5 Common Core 6 How do you pronounce OS? 7 Os-tan 8 Virtual Operating system 9 QNX 10 Main OS's 11 Classification and terminology section 12 MS/Windows installation? 13 Windows near monopoly? 14 Poor History 15 Unix-like systems 16 Other operating systems 17 Ilustrations? 18 Windows is not a OS, the Microsoft's OS "first name" is DOS. 19 History and OS/360 20 OS vs Operating sytem 21 GUI's as shells 22 CLI's within windowing OS's 23 copyedit request 24 This article needs a great deal of expansion 25 Suggestion 26 chickens 27 Most popular before Microsoft? 28 Really sorry 29 Windows CE (+), a descendant of Windows? 30 TSR programs not too easy 31 What about the other MAJOR OSs of our time? 32 Market Share

[edit] History section moved

I'm moving the entire "history of operating systems" section to its own page. The entire (very large) subject of operating system concepts and research operating systems hasn't been mentioned. And that's just the current research OSes. If we include the past research OSes (ie, missed opportunities) the history section could get very big indeed....

[edit] Definition of OS

In a technical sense an operating system is the system software responsible for the direct control and management of the hardware that makes up a computer and basic system operations such as

• memory management
• process management
• file management
• input/output management

There's nothing "technical" about the definition of OS. Especially if you look at research OSes. There are good arguments for why graphics is a necessary part of the OS, for example.

Add: These are kernel functions only. While it could be argued that an OS may imply a kernel, many operating systems may run the same on top while having different kernels (for example unix flavors, a few run L4, then you have HURD and all the mach versions). An operating system more specifically provides an interface between the users, software, and hardware, and sometimes between multiple applications as well (OSX's high level IPC). The OS itself usually doesn't interact with the hardware directly, but instead through the kernel or core services in a microkernel. Most operating systems also provide a framework for user applications to be produced upon, supplying things like a standard GUI framework. For a more minimal definition, the simplest OS would provide a standard interface for accessing applications and files, possibly a command line, and applications would either use the same command line or provide their own GUI from scratch. Of course, when you get complex GUI systems like the Finder or windows explorer it gets more complicated since those interfaces can be replaced, but the OS would still generally supply the file/application data to those to display. An OS, however does NOT provide memory management, process management (at least not low level, but it might display process information to the user), or low level file management, although it may provide a high level file hierarchy and file navigation services. Input/output management depends, but its usage here is fairly ambiguous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.98.124.237 (talk • contribs) 23:11, December 1, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] File ownership and Superuser

Operating systems which distinguish more than one user also track such things as file ownership (I can't read (or erase or alter) your files unless you allow me to) and access to the machine (without properly identifying myself, the operating system will not let me run programs, including itself). These restrictions on users' privileges necessarily require creation of a kind of superuser who can tell the system about newly authorized users, revoke privileges for formerly authorized users, permit those who have forgotten their passwords access, install software, delete software, ...

I just removed this. If you interpret "file ownership" narrowly (ie, as what Unix does) then it's a blatant lie that multi-user systems require tracking of file ownership. If you interpret it broadly, then it's extremely deceptive because the broad definition is not what people will understand.

The "superuser" bit is also wrong. But this phrase pissed me off: necessarily require creation of a kind of superuser?? Who's the ignoramus who wrote this? Not only is it a blatant lie but it's a lie aimed at apologizing for Unix' bad design. Whoever wrote it must have a severe case of Dennis Ritchie worship. Unix's user model (with a single totalitarian superuser) is modeled on fascism and I really hate people who apologize for fascism. -- Ark

@Ark : fascism?? I do not believe the necessity of a superuser is in any way fascism. Required in most, if not all Operating Systems *including Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, as well as all UNIX-like systems* it is the duty of the superuser to maintain the integrity and security of the computer. The superuser's power, when implimented correctly and not abused, can limit what items certain users can access and prevent harm to the system. Because UNIX's file permissions are easily controlled on an individual basis, they allow more security that Windows just designating someone Administrator (superuser), or Standard User (which still has a great deal of power, by default. As for this being a design flaw in UNIX, please feel free to explain why to me. --166.66.32.55 18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)freedomlinux

[edit] Stuff removed

Removed this recently added ... er ... stuff:

Operating Systems made so far The first real popular OS avaible for PC was DOS (Disk Operating System), made by Bill Gates and Paul Allen in 1975. After that, the systems have developed into much more advanced programs that let you use your hardware in very many ways. Here is a list with the biggest operating systems from the start:

• MS-DOS - 1975
• Unix - 1983
• Microsoft Windows - 1985
• Microsoft Windows 2.0 - 1987
• Microsoft Windows 3.0 - 1990
• Linux - 1991
• Microsoft Windows NT - 1994
• Microsoft Windows 95 - 1995
• Microsoft Windows 98 - 1998
• Microsoft Windows 2000 - 2000
• Microsoft Windows ME - 2000
• Microsoft Windows XP - 2001
• Lindows - 2002

Several reasons for this: (i) it ignores mainframe and mini operating systems, from which microcomputer operating systems descend. (ii) it's way too short and selective - AppleDOS, CPM, Amiga, TRSDOS, etc., etc., etc. (iii) It dates MS-DOS to 1975 (6 years before the IBM PC!) and ignores the things it was cloned from. (iv) It lists one particular minor Linux distribution (Lindows) and ignores all others.

In short, it needs a lot of work - and the end result would simply be to duplicate material that is already covered in greater depth and with more accuracy elsewhere. Tannin 22:59 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that a user interface need not involve a monitor at all. The user interface can be as simple as a row of pushbuttons and an accompanying row of lights. Computers operated via push buttons, teletype terminals, etc... are increasingly rare, but they were once common. Let's not limit the 'pedia to strictly modern beliefs. Elde 09:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Common Core

This article isn't really up to scratch on this point, surprisingly, seeing that we are on the internet here and there should be enough programmers. Someone seems to be confusing functionalty of API and of OS. The objective of an OS is to provide an abstraction layer to the hardware of the system to make more different architectures somewhat compatible with each other. This may have been forgotten in the windows era, but see NetBSD and even lowly Linux . Hmmm. Kim Bruning 11:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

As I try to point out the original objective (circa 1960) is to change the accounting for computer usage from the wall clock to the computer's internal clock and to protect/secure those accounting records from malicious users (who would want to reduce the amount attributed to them). After the various attempts to do this came the realization that this new "layer" could transform the appearance of the hardware. The early operating systems made no effort to allow really different architectures, they were specifically written to exactly one definition of hardware (which could have been broad enough to include some significant variations). OS360 was written for the the line of IBM mainframes, the OS on CDC machines only ran on CDC machines, the OS on the Univacs only ran on the Univacs. I am most familiar with the operating systems on the DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) boxes and there the TOPS-10 OS only ran on PDP-6s, PDP-10s, and PDP-20's; RSTS, DOS-11, RT-11, RSX-11M, and RSX-11S only ran on PDP-11s; OS-8 only ran on PDP-8s; and while there were some common themes, similar utilities, etc, programs could not be moved from RSTS to RSX-11M let alone to an other DEC machine. Even though TOPS-10 did absolutely nothing to accomodate different architectures, its writers and users still found it useful to visualize the "virtual machine" that the OS presented to user programs.

And as for "lowly Linux" (it is spelled with one l) technically it towers over anything Microsoft has had since it sold off its UNIX business. 03 June 2004 Arthur Protin <protin@h-68-166-100-10.nycmny83.covad.net>

[edit] How do you pronounce OS?

I've always said OS as in the way you say GUI, but Apple pronounces it O-S (spells it out). I was just wondering which way was common. I thought I heard someone on tv say Mac OS X my way.--naryathegreat 23:34, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I pronounce it somewhat like "ahs," unless I am talking about OS X, in which case I spell it out because that is how Apple does it. Apparently, saying "ahs X" regarding OS X is almost as bad as calling it "OS 10," (that is, discouraged) among a few Apple fans I know. Mga 05:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. Are either of you computer science people? I've done a lot of programming over the years (my experience covers 12 languages although I stay proficient now only in 2) and all other programmers I know have always spelled out the letters out loud as O-S. Or at least that's the way everyone says it in California. --Coolcaesar 21:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, with 32 years in the business, I can think of only one instance where it was anything other than O-S: The "commercial operating system" that Digital Equipment Corporation sold for its PDP-8 family was called COS-300 (and later, COS-310); this was pronounced "Kawss-300" (and later "Kawss-310"). Other than that, I can't think of a single case where OS isn't spelled out as "O-S": OS/8, OS/360, OS-9, Mac OS X, Z/OS, and so on. Once in a while, the initialism RTOS is pronounced "R-toss" but it's much more often spoken as "R-T-O-S".

Atlant 00:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt your speculations but there is an official pronunciation for Mac OS X. It is pronounced "mac - o - s - ten". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.78.0.58 (talk • contribs) .

I have always said O-S and so has everyone I know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.194.119 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Os-tan

IIRC there has been a VFD debate on Os-tan, with consensus to keep*, so all links should be kept too. Feel free to (re?)challenge Os-tan on vfd, but don't remove the links before a clear consensus to delete.

• IIRC, YMMV, wikipedia search tools turn out to be truely terrible, so I can't find a link back to the debate in question. :-/
  • No reference to os-tan in archived vfd pages? Could be. Darn! Still, first vfd os-tan page, only then delete links to it. Kim Bruning 13:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kim Bruning 12:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with OS-tan having its own page with links to whatever. However I don't see why the actual OS pages should link to OS-tan, I don't see what this contributes to the actual OS pages. Fair enough if it was an actual official or unofficial mascot like Tux or Hexley, but when it is just something a bunch of people made up to amuse themselves...

If someone out there has written Bill Gates/Steve Jobs slash fiction stories should we create links to them on the Steve Jobs and Bill Gates pages? AlistairMcMillan 17:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Operating system

Hi Anybody knows that there can be Virtual Operating system . Virtual OS will be faster , manageable , controlable with the amazing speed.

Let us know your views.

Regards Yogsma

Yes, but only in the 9th dimension ;-) . --Hdante 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out Xen or VMware. — Jeremy | Talk 01:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Try the original and surviving incarnation in IBM's VM. Mvanner 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QNX

The embedded OS section is rather of target. QNX Rt-Linux and NetBSD are all embedded and are Unixes. Watsonladd July 6, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

[edit] Main OS's

I wanted to clarify the section about 'Today's operating systems', but it got all reverted. I didn't get it completely right, but it was meant as an incentive to others to clarify things. I suppose I should have started with asking here. So here goes. Some explaining would be in place here about the different types of computers and what they run. I probably won't get it completely right again this time but if I'm wrong could you correct the following. I know a bit about this and if I don't get the article then there must be something wrong with it. If I'm not mistaken, there are

• 80x86 computers, running
  • smaller Unix variants like Linux
  • msWindows
• Macs, running
  • Mac OS, which these days is a Unix variant
  • Linux
• mainframes, running
  • Unix variants
  • msWindows
  • a score of other OS's, mostly related to Unix
• Embedded systems, running Linux or limited versions of other OS's.

The first two could be grouped together under 'personal computer', which makes sense linguistically and makes it more understandable to relative laymen, although some would object to that. Anyway, it should be explained.

Mentioning specifically that Linux runs on (practically) all computers certainly seems worth mentioning. Also that it's the only one that does that. Or isn't it? And doesn't Linux run 'unaltered' on embedded systems? As I understand it, the kernel needs to be compiled, but that's the normal way to go. I'm also a bit confused about the Linux/GNU thing. And I don't know what BSD runs on. But, like I said, if even I don't get all that from this article, then there's something amiss.

Two more things that could do with some more explaining are the difference between console OS's like DOS and GUI's and the difference between applications and programs. If you exclude OS's from programs, I thought that was the same as an application. But the second paragraph in the 'Common core services' section suggests otherwise. DirkvdM 08:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Linux runs on practically all current computers, but it's not alone in that regard: the same could be said for NetBSD or OpenBSD ... although Linux runs on an S/390 mainframe and I don't think BSD does; but BSD will run on systems with no MMU whereas Linux won't.

It seems to me much more relevant, though, to note that the operating-systems market collapsed radically over the course of the 1990s. Whole classes of OS that were relevant ten or fifteen years ago are no longer -- in the "server" or "enterprise" world, consider VMS, Pick, NetWare; in the microcomputer world, AmigaDOS. Basically, operating systems have collapsed to Unixoids and Windoids; and the Unix market is in the process of collapsing to Linux distributions.

The reasons I reverted that edit, by the way, were as follows:

• "personal computers (the 80x86 family)" -- this is a double error: first, there are non-x86 personal computers; second, there are x86 systems which are not personal computers, such as servers.
• "On Apple Macintosh computers the main OS is Mac OS, with Linux again as an alternative." -- Mac OS X, not Mac OS, is the current OS on Macintosh computers. Very few Mac users run Linux (by comparison with the number of x86 users who do).
• "Linux is the only OS that will run on (almost) any computer." -- this is erroneous, since NetBSD runs on some systems that Linux doesn't.

I think it would be worthwhile to discuss more the differences between "operating systems" as computer scientists see them (kernels -- scheduling, virtual memory, real-time, and so on) and "operating systems" as marketers see them (libraries, GUIs, bundled applications). There is a real terminology gap there. --FOo 04:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I already got some of that. I'll leave the scientific viewpoint (which I would rather call the programmer's viewpoint) to you and others and have another go at the marketeers viewpoint (which I would rather call the consumer's viewpoint). I'll base it on the list above. Correct me where I'm wrong. By the way, I like the terms Unixoids and Windoids, but they don't seem encyclopedic enough :) . One thing I'm not sure about is the right term for a DOS-like OS. I've called it a console but linked it to Command line interface. DirkvdM 09:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. The console/GUI software can either be considered part of the OS, or not. For example, in Microsoft Windows, the GUI is considered part of the operating system, while in Unix, in general, it's considered an optional application. This is not clear in the article. It would be nice if you tried to rewrite the section here in the talk page so that you put it in less technical terms. Others will refine it and we can move it back to the main page. --Hdante 18:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Even from a programmer's viewpoint, most usages of "operating system" include more than the kernel. If you ask a programmer "is Unix an operating system?", most of them will say "yes", even though what makes something a "Unix" has very little to do with the kernel (POSIX is mostly a set of userland apps and library APIs). Yes, there is a narrow set of computer scientists and engineers studying kernel design that sometimes use "operating system" to mean mainly the kernel, but it would be a mistake to present this as a "more scientific" or "more correct" meaning among programmers—language is defined by usage, and here the overwhelming usage refers to more than just the kernel. —Steven G. Johnson 19:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How did OS/360 thru z/OS managed to be related to UNIX? Especially since OS/360 and it's predecessors pre-date UNIX by 5 years or more? Mvanner 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classification and terminology section

This section divides the system into:

Hardware <-> Kernel <-> Shell <-> Applications 

This doesn't seem to reflect current terminology, however. For example, the "shell" on a Unix system refers to something like csh, bash, etcetera, and does not include all of the libraries etcetera that are required to run application software. Things like libc, X11 and GNOME, MacOS's Quartz etc. libraries, or the Win32 API and GUI are rarely if ever referred to as part of the "shell". (Googling for "Windows shell" yields usages for the command line, Explorer, and other filesystem interfaces.) —Steven G. Johnson 00:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MS/Windows installation?

What are the TECHNICAL DETAILS of the windows installation process. Meaning what are all the small technical steps which are sequentially executed internally by Windows during its installation ? Somebody please list them out.

You're in the wrong place. You need to visit Wikipedia:Reference desk. Furthermore, you can probably find that information at the Microsoft Developer Network, msdn.microsoft.com, or in one of the numerous books on Windows published by Microsoft Press. --Coolcaesar 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows near monopoly?

Why does it say "Today Windows enjoys a near-monopoly of around 90%"? If we aren't going to just say "Windows enjoys a monopoly", could we change it to "Windows enjoys a debatable monopoly"? To me saying a near-monopoly is implying that it isn't a monopoly at all, and is close to becoming one, which isn't the case.

In the case The US vs. Microsoft, MS was accused of abusing its "monopoly power", you are either a monopoly or you are not. I think saying "near monopoly" is less useful to the reader, DaveRocks should have properly explained his reasoning here when he reverted my edit, instead he assumed he was right and went right ahead. The same case has been brought against MS in the EU, again for abusing its monopoly. They have become the sole supplier of operating systems which thier own software, unless you include WINE. Therefore I think it should be stated as a monopoly. -- Tompsci 17:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Tompsci. We should say that Microsoft does have a monopoly in the operating system market as far as consumers are concerned. Only hard-core computer geeks actually go out of their way to compare and contrast features of Linux, MacOS and Windows when purchasing a new computer. The vast majority of consumers just use Windows by default because it's what the computer comes with or it's what they need to run their favorite applications. Of course, the situation is different in the corporate market, where corporations have armies of technicians to care for their Linux server farms. --Coolcaesar 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia must offer "politically neutral" texts. It is not a place for personal opinions. The position against Microsoft marketing strategies (being them good or bad, like the "borrowed from OpenVMS" citation) is evident, and are going fair away from the subject: Operating system. The "monopoly" attribution is quite a heavy and subjective adjective, very difficult to be proved (apart from a general sense of it... but passive as injury). Being it subjective, the conclusion (of monopoly) should be left to the reader and not "proposed" by the encyclopedia. So, probably the text should only make references to the participation of the Windows OSs in the market (maybe pointing to statistical resources) and nothing else. FredCK 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A monopoly is defined by various sources to be a sole supplier of a product or service, or have such market domination as to have price control over it. Microsoft is in the second category, and can legitimately be said to have a monopoly. Whether one thinks that MS has a monopoly or only a de facto monopoly depends on your definition of the term, so either one can be acceptable --Blainster 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been established in the US courts, by Department of Justice lawyers, that Microsoft has and abuses monopoly power. That power is so great that, even although it was also proven that Microsoft was "untrustworthy", the courts essentially could do nothing about it. Furthermore, the Department of Justice which brought the case, was so in thrall to its Microsoft-indoctrinated computer staff that the DoJ still uses Microsoft software, including the notoriously cracker-penetrable Microsoft Office. albert

[edit] Poor History

This page does a very poor job of discussion the history of operating systems. It is not the case that computers before UNIX didn't have an operating system, which is almost what is suggested by the opening comments. UNIX was a later-comer, and actually had very few new ideas in it (although it was elegantly simple in its early versions).

One should discuss IBM OS/360 and Fred Brook's _Mythical Man Month_, inspired by his experiences during its development. Other important industrial operating systems include:

UNIVAC - Exec, RTB Control Data - Scope, NOS Cray - NOS DEC - RT-11, VMS

Operating systems didn't begin with UNIX.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --FOo 04:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That said, this article is quite poor. Thank you for identifying its weaknesses. --Robert Merkel 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to fix it. First step is a potted history section. --Robert Merkel 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unix-like systems

The last paragraph in the "Unix-like systems" section is very poorly written and it is not clear whether the statements are referring to plan 9 or inferno. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.85.25 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Other operating systems

"Older operating systems which are still used in niche markets include the Windows-like OS/2 from IBM; Mac OS, the non-Unix precursor to Apple's Mac OS X; RISC OS, which is specifically designed to run on ARM processor architectures; and AmigaOS, the first graphical user interface (GUI) based operating system with advanced multimedia capabilities available to the general public."

I think it would be worthwhile to add BeOS to this list. It is still used extenisively in theater productions by sound designers and engineers. (I am a theatrical sound engineer, myself.) Disney, for example, still uses BeOS for almost every stage show they do, all over the world.

I've never edited a Wikipedia article before, but I'm imagining the proper thing to do is post this to the discussion page before making any changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.107.68.50 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Ilustrations?

There are free ilustrations, Like http://www.webopedia.com/FIG/OPER-SYS.gif ??

[edit] Windows is not a OS, the Microsoft's OS "first name" is DOS.

removing Windows from "OS names" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krauss (talk • contribs) .

You're correct that the Windows layer atop DOS wasn't an operating system, but that ship has sailed. Most people are probably now using "Windows" to refer to the new-generation Windows products including Windows/NT, Windows/2000, and Windows/XP, and there, the operating system is most definitely not DOS. I don't think we need to get so pedantic at this point in the article.

Atlant 14:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree, it is correct. Only dicussion comments:

1. Take care on reverting, people working with other contents in the same edit!
2. My point... the citations on Itroduction is only for "... the most popular names when people talk about OS..."; DOS is a "very popular OS name", can cited, but Windows cause mistakes with the OS/GUI separation, it is treated on the Windows section.

Krauss 18 April 2006

Google say (the 3 most populars OS-names!):

Windows "Operating system":    165,000,000 
Linux "Operating system":      102,000,000
UNIX "Operating system":        63,400,000

"Mac OS"  "Operating system":   26,200,000
DOS "Operating system":         13,300,000 
VMS  "Operating system":         1,800,000

Come on: we can take off "Mac OS".

[edit] History and OS/360

The paragraph starts by saying "several major concepts ..." and then mentions the development of OS/360, which strictly speaking is not a concept. Also it mentions hard disks without describing what concept was involved. Also only hard disks are mentioned in relation to OS/360 even though the sentence is introduced with "also" (something earlier apparently got deleted).

I don't know enough about OS/360 to fix this. Anyone? Bueller? Ideogram 15:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Until TSO was introduced, OS/360 had no GUI, no user console whatsoever. It had file ownership, scheduling, protected supervisor mode, protected RAM, multitasking, multiple user scheduling, asynchronous I/O, and a Job Control Language with a "procedure library" which was a collection of macros in modern terminology. Much of the system code was written so that, when in RAM, it could be interrupted by a higher priority task, while the current task was stacked up to resume execution when the high priority task completed. In order to do this, code was written to be "re-entrant", i.e. it had to do make no changes for the current task that would affect the interrupted task. This was a pretty formidable demand, given that the RAM size might be as little as 64K. Albert 20:26 13 Nov 2006

Done. But I'm sure if we really put our minds to it, we can come up with more concepts. Certainly "computer networking" belongs in there somewhere (SNA, Bitnet, UUCP, etc.) Compatible filesystems may belong in there as well (UFS seems like the best example to me of an early, widely-compatible filesystem).

Atlant 16:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OS vs Operating sytem

We should try to agree on some kind of policy for where to use OS or Operating system. Generally I think we should use operating systems where it is plural (OS's seems awkward), and try to use OS elsewhere, except maybe the first usage in a paragraph. Ideogram 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GUI's as shells

How is the GUI in Windows NT descended OS's a shell? Isn't the GUI integrated into the kernel there? Ideogram 16:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, definitely not. The actual Windows/NT operating system is quite small, with all of the other "stuff" implemented outside the kernel including stuff (like the HAL) that we might ordinarily bundle into the definition of OS. I'm not sure there ever really was a bundled GUI/OS, although you might make the claim for MacoS pre-X and I don't know enough about AmigaDOS to really say. Certainly all the workstations (using X/windows) have the UIs (including the GUIs) decoupled from the OS as does MacOS/X as does NT/2K/XP...

Atlant 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn the GUI was moved into the NT kernel for performance reasons. I'll see if I can dig up a reference. Ideogram 16:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but as your research this, be careful to distinguish "operating in Kernel mode" from actually being a part of the kernel; they're separable concepts. I could imagine for high graphical performance you'd want your windows drivers to have access to the hardware, a privilege often reserved for code operating with at least some kernel permissions.

Atlant 17:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's no question that architecturally the GUI is separate from the rest of the kernel. Whether this constitutes "distributed with tools for programs to display and manage a GUI" is a matter for discussion. Ideogram 17:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually after reading your changes closely I have no objection to the wording, since you say "sometimes". I might even say "usually". Ideogram 17:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CLI's within windowing OS's

I think there's some question as to whether a CLI within a windowing system is really a "CLI operating system". Ideogram 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyedit request

I have gone over this article very closely. Can you be more specific about what needs to be done? Ideogram 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You've done a great (and fast) job. I think you've covered it all. Remove the tag if you think it's good. -- Steven Fisher 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a great deal of expansion

This is not even close to being even considered complete. What about scheduling, memory management, kernel mode vs user mode, processes and threads, a fuller discussion of micro-kernels vs monolithic kernels, etc, etc? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! Go ahead! Ideogram 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and what about a hospital as an operating system?? --Blainster 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And we now have a woefully-inadequate section on security, written purely from the perspective of IP ports and completely ignoring every other aspect of system security.

Atlant 17:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the information on kernels, scheduling, memory management, and processes threads, etc. should be expanded. As long as those technical concepts are briefly mentioned here, that is sufficient. Readers with the curiosity to find out what those things are can follow the links. Keep in mind that most people do not find kernels or big-endian v. little-endian to be very interesting (and I have tried to explain the importance of such technical concepts to many acquaintances over the years, with mixed results).

Operating systems are huge, complex beasts. The article should maintain a high-level overview of the subject with sufficient links to in-depth information for those who are interested.

I do agree that the information on security is grossly inadequate and should be expanded. --Coolcaesar 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the information about threads at the threads on computer science are more like programming like than the thread manipulation by the os. -- SiegeM 23:25, 09 August 2006 (UTC)

for those topics there's some coverage in the kernel article. I'm not sure what could be included here.--BMF81 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

It will be a good idea to add about a minimun of 3 pictures, maybe from Windows, Mac OS X and Linux.

[edit] chickens

Who vandalised this page with "i like chickens"? WHO? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.113.125 (talk • contribs) .

In the opening lines "higher level functions" are not explained. I htink they should be replaced with something more clear.

The article history page says it was 206.207.175.170. Complain to them. ;-)

Atlant 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most popular before Microsoft?

Please, tell me the name of the most popular Operating sysytem before MS-DOS became the most popular. You can answer right here as soon as you can Moscvitch 16:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The world was fragmented.

In the PC space, CP/M was popular, but PCs were still not very common.

Meanwhile, every vendor had their own operating system(s) so MVS was very popular in the IBM world, VMS was very popular in the DEC world, and so on.

I doubt we could figure out (let alone agree upon) which O/S was most popular before MS/DOS.

Atlant 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I mean O/S for IBM-PC/ Moscvitch 16:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

IBM PC debuted with PC/DOS (which was actually MS/DOS). So there wasn't any OS for the IBM PC before MS/DOS.

Atlant 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume that on "Home Computers", it was Commodore's KERNAL and Atari_TOS before QDOS came up. I remember having used GEM on TOS when I got some brand new Intel 80C86 with MS-DOS 2. On huge systems (not specifically meaning mainframes, but systems taking a lot of space ;)), Unix and VMS were quite common. Depending on the price, use cases were very widespread. In Fortran 4 times and with needs of every bit performance, the interest in common operating systems and their clean separation of tasks was not always an issue. But that's only a personal memory. 80.108.61.230 03:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really sorry

I just want to apologise for my blatant re-write of the operating system definition, i'm just trying to help, but next time i'll do a bit more research before I think about trying it again, sorry again. - Mc hammerutime (talk)

[edit] Windows CE (+), a descendant of Windows?

In marketing and some aspects of usability, it's a part of the product family. But technically, it's neither a relative to DOS nor to the NT Kernel. So it could be misleading to imply a relationship besides having the same vendor. It's similar to calling the Apple OS on their iPod being a descendant of Mac OS 80.108.61.230 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TSR programs not too easy

The article states: "although DOS itself featured TSR as a very partial and not too easy to use solution" The problem with writing TSR programs was, that it was too easy. From a programmer's view, making a program TSR was easier than forking and deamonizing on a modern Unix system because of its limitations. You didn't have to care about signal handling - and that's the point. They were limited and lacked IPC. But saying it would have been hard is not exactly what the problem was about. What should be said that forking was not possible and the need to handle parallelization for yourself by vector-swapping and interrupt-violation mania. When a TSR compares to MySQL's auto-increment and daemonizing to Oracle's sequences+triggers- which one is easier and which one is more powerful to work with? ;) 80.108.61.230 03:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your comment makes little sense —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.166.146.197 (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What about the other MAJOR OSs of our time?

Novell? Solaris? Symbion? Windows CE? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.97.20.142 (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Market Share

The market share statistics that are being quoted here apparently come from [[1]]. These statistics are for computers that surf the internet, and do not include web servers, database servers and the like.

The statistics at [[2]] tell quite a different story. In the realm of web servers (computers that run the internet), Apache/Unix machines are 60% of the installed base. There are 63,800,000 such machines. While this article does suggest that the 94% statistic is for desktop computers, there is no mention of Unix's dominance in the web server world.

The mainstream press got it completely wrong, as usual. In this article, [[3]], it is stated that "Windows runs on more than 95 percent of the world's computers." Not possible.

I added a citation for the 94% figure in this article. Maybe someone could put something in the Unix section about web server market share? Robertwharvey 03:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right when you say that Internet-connected desktop computer operating system market share quotes are being misused to discuss operating systems in general.

However, you're doing the same thing with the Netcraft numbers. Netcraft tracks particular types of Web servers, not operating systems. Apache runs on a lot of other systems besides Unix; it is erroneous to conclude that the proportion of Apache Web servers is the proportion of Web server systems running Unix. (Notably, Apache can run on Windows.)

What's more, market share is not really a very useful figure for people who aren't in the sales business. For ordinary users, installed base is more interesting, because network effects (like, can you get support for it?) depend more on installed base than on market share. Netcraft tracks installed base, not market share ... but of the wrong thing for this discussion. --FOo 09:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)