Talk:Timeline of operating systems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Lisp Machine was a machine with a real operating system all its own. In fact, it was in many ways a very influential system, some of whose ideas have gone on to influence many other systems.
The earliest manual I have (the black "Chinual") is dated January 1979. I think the previous date given ('77) may be a bit too early - it is not exactly (albeit it is roughly) in accord with my memory, which is that the CADR came to life in '78 or so. (I was there the first time Moon tried to load the machine, and I only started hanging out at 545 Tech Sq in the fall of '77, and it wasn't right away that they got the CADR up.) Noel 15:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Unreleased OSes
I already removed references to Windows Vista(listed under 2005!) once, 62.131.174.237 added it back, can we agree that we should not list unreleased systems(unles of historical interest maybe, but stuff that might(or might not) be released next year is hardly of historical interest... so I'm removing it again, if anyone disagrees please say why. Lost Goblin 02:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Releases and (Linux) Distributions
We really can't list linux distributions here, it would take more space than all the other OSes put together. The question is, how can we list Linux then? I think we should list the Linux Kernel instead, but then, that is not an OS.
Then there is the problem of what releases are major enough to warrant a new entry, point releases certainly don't deserve to be listed, but given the variety of release models, it's hard to set an standard. Anyone knows how it would be best to handle this? Lost Goblin 12:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Linux definatly also needs to be listed in a more notable way in there. Every version of Mac OS X is listed in there including minor version number changes. Either only place one version of each OS in there (so Mac OS only once in there just like Linux is now), or do it for every OS (so for example major kernel releases of Linux). Or make a graphical timeline where each OS has a bar over it's entire lifetime with release numbers in it.--Lodev 14:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Linux on its own timeline?
Maybe it's already in here, but that would be nice, it's just too damn hard to track down all the dates...
[edit] Future(s)
Yes, especially with Vista, I agree that no up-and-coming oses should be allowed on here. Vista has been pushed back since what-it's original date of 2003?
[edit] Including mobile OSes?
I've noticed a number of missing systems, all of which could be considered influential: Newton OS (1993), EPOC (1989 for EPOC16/1997 for EPOC32) and symbian derivatives (starting 2000 for the first phone release, see the symbian os page for more dates), GEOS (1986 for the 8bit version), Windows CE and successors (Nov 1996 for v1.0).
All of these small (handheld) operating systems could be considered of growing importance as they take on more day to day functions for people in their phones.
As an aside, should the java platform (MIDP) be included? with the sophisticated applications available for it (eg. googlemaps, opera mini) over numerous appliances, it technically can't be considered an os as it doesn't run on bare metal (there are exceptions eg. kaffe on the OSkit), but in the eyes of most users it is indistinguishable from one as it is often the only way to extend the functionality of the device in question.
As an esoteric example, the POGO phone ran on a flash VM.
217.205.225.69 13:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] THE OS
Should THE OS be added? I'd say it is pretty significant.
