To be fair, there are lots of OS's out there. I picked on some of the less well known -- avoiding the obvious ones like Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OS/X, MacOS, "Linux" (though Linux is just a kernel), etc.
I have used or still have most of the above
The ones you listed previously , I assumed you were trying to stump me and you did!
Well, just for an experiment I may try that registry hack anyway
Speaking of Buicks here one from 1957 which has been modified a bit
Yes, modified by photoshop but I like it Someone posted it recently on FB thinking it was real
You'll never know if it is "working reliably" -- only if it is NOT! :> And, you'll never know if one of the updates that get installed next Tuesday will break it.
It's like overclocking a CPU -- yeah, it *might* work (for a particular chip, temperature, power supply voltage, application, etc.)... or, not.
If you want a faster CPU, *buy* a faster CPU, etc.
Unless, of course, you don't REALLY want it (i.e., are willing to have a broken computer) but just want to "play".
They're just different markets. (Or, failed products -- e.g., BeOS, Unixware, Coherent)
Plan 9 and Inferno are more research OS's -- though I think both are used in some real telecom products. You can, for example, run Inferno *in* a web browser!
OpusV was a System V port to a NS32000 "coprocessor card" many decades ago. At the time, probably the fastest UN*X you'd encounter on a PC platform (it would even run in a 286 -- using the PC just as an "I/O processor")
Jaluna is intended for embedded systems but not widely used (too radical and too klunky of a build environment).
Amoeba and Mach-US (as well as Mach-Lites, Mach-UX, Poe, etc.) are proof of concept OS's that try to introduce a new/different way of doing things than traditional OS's. E.g., under Mach, you could run all of these other OS's at the same time -- as if they were the sole OS running on the machine. Amoeba (and Mach) also introduce more versatile security models (instead of the lame "Administrator/root vs. others" model).
For example, I can let a particular user append information to a file (i.e., write -- but only at the end!) and deny him the ability to overwrite existing information, delete the file
*or* read anything in the file -- including the stuff he just wrote!Or, I can let a user set turn a network interface on but never off (once its been turned on). And, prevent yet another user from ever typing a '7'! (WTF?) All the while, not interfering with the actions of "other" users.
These things are simply not possible in conventional OS's.
[Imagine the things a user might want to be able to do are: unlock the front door, open the garage, alter irrigation settings, check the temperature of the water heater, etc.]
Just recalled that I have XP installed in a virtual machine.
All I need do is copy the .vdi, then experiment
Again, all you will learn from this is if it DOESN'T work -- if you can catch it doing something "wrong". You'll never be able to say, definitively, "yes, this is the same as XP".
Here is what I just did:
I have XP in a virtual machine but never updated it.
Went to update it now for the first time and the process went very fast.
There were two preliminary updates needed and once they were applied it found and started to fetch 131 more ASAP.
So my theory that MS was throttling updates for older systems is wrong...looks like they are singling out Win7 for some reason.
I wonder why ?
I reported here my recent experience with Win 7. I restored a 4 year old PC back to it's original software, so I needed to do all the Win 7 updates. First it put in a new update agent. Then it did a bunch of updates that went fine. Then it put in a new update agent and after that it just sat there forever, checking for updates, not proceeding. I found lots of people in various forums online, having the same problem, ie that after it put that certain new update agent, everything stopped. I think some people reported that if left alone for 2 days, it may have eventually proceeded. People had contacted MSFT, no resolution. So, finally I thought to look and see if there was a newer update agent. I found there were several, downloaded one, installed it manually, and then updates proceeded normally again. So, there is definitely something wrong between that one particular update agent and the MSFT update servers. What else may be going on, IDK. But it occurred to me that MSFT isn't too interested in fixing any of that because it will help drive people to Win 10.
Believe me, I tried newer update agents and everything I could think of to no avail. The best I could to is just leave the machine set to auto-update, then let it sit overnight.
That usually did the trick but could take 8 - 12 hours to complete.
I really think MS is doing that purposely to "encourage" a move to Win10.
Possibly they just leave XP alone as it cannot be directly upgraded?
BTW: Since I had XP in a virtual machine and the installation is of little value to me, I did try that previously mentioned registry hack and got something like 46 more updates. Nothing seemed to have been "screwed up" but I am not suggesting that others try it.
There are still browsers and virus checkers for XP...so it will probably be around for a while yet.
I never have been able to get any form of linux to do much of anything other than to piss me off, but OS/2 was something I really liked back in it's day, and at that time, it looked like it would replace Windows. Although they claim differently, I think MS bought them out because they did not want the competition. Probably the biggest failure in the history of personal computers.
If OS/2 had succeeded, we'd probably all be using it now, especially since MS began their attempts to force their latest spyware disasters (Win 8 and 10) on us.
I just loved OS/2
As to Linux, it's very easy now and works quite well.
I use it as my full time OS but still find Windows quite a necessity.
Haw about the various versions of CPM? or the multi-user multi-tasking OS9 ?(generally on Motorola 6809 and 68000 series systems)
Don't run on PC's.
MP/M, ISIS-II, ZRDOS, ZDOS, VRTX, QNX, FreeDOS, MULTICS, TOPS-10, DG/UX, AIX, ZCPR3, RTX11, UNIX, MINIX, XENIX, AmigaOS, NeXTSTEP, etc.
It's unfortunate that the one most people think about (Windows) is probably the most boring...
On 05/13/2016 07:30 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote: ? Coherent UNIX? OpusV? Inferno? Jaluna? Amoeba? Mach-US?
I do have a Kaypro that works the last time I had it on, so did get to fool with CP/M a bit.
Incredibly more advanced than DOS
CPM286 worked onPCs.. Along with several other versions from what I remember.
IBM used something called TQ DOS that was a multitasking application that ran under the standard DOS OS along with the 3270 emulator.
What I used in college was called Isis-II and was similar to CP/M.
BTW, I still have the 8-inch flippy disk. I'll probably never know if it's still good.
[snip]
New Firefox and Opera browsers still work on XP.
I now have XP only on a VM, although I don't see any problem with continuing to use it. As to the browser, I've used Firefox since v0.8 (the first version called Firefox).
When I tried Linux in 2010, I got the browser (Firefox) working almost immediately.
I still have one real machine (not VM) with Windows, but I used it very little. Mainly for a certain Windows-only program that needs direct access to a USB port, but I've found out how to do that with a VM so may put Linux on that one too.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.