The Boring State of operating systems today

What happened?

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9802
from WinCustomize Forums

Eugenia from OSNews.com has written a lengthy but interesting article on the state of operating systems tehse days.

She writes:

In the '80s we had at least 6 operating systems that had a good hold of market share each (e.g. AmigaOS, Mac, DOS, GEM, GeOS, Unix flavors). In the '90s we had Windows and Windows NT, Mac, DOS, OS/2, Linux, AmigaOS, BSD, other Unices and even BeOS, all with some considerable usage share (before Windows 9x got to its 94% of market share and get declared monopolistic). Along with those, you had a gazillion other small, embedded, academic or hobby OSes. We are talking about a few hundrend of them.

Today, it's the game of the three, plus about 10 more OSes that draw some minor only attention by the media: BSDs, QNX, Symbian, SkyOS, Zeta/BeOS, Solaris, Windows Mobile, PalmOS and some even smaller ones, like VxWorks, Syllable, MenuetOS etc. Overall, I would't say that there are more than 40-50 active or noteworthy OS projects/products out there today. That's a far cry from the hundrends that existed in the '80s and '90s.

And I have to agree with her. The excitment of the 90s is over.  Where is an OS/2 2.0 where you need it? Or the AmigaOS? MacOS X and Windows continue to evolve but there's nothing revolutionary in either one. Both seem content to snap up third party ISV ideas and toss them into the OS.

11,068 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Well, I didn't know about the ones that existed today. Some of those named, like SkyOS and QNX I thought were things that sit on top of DOS or Windows.

Zeta/BeOS????

What i wonder is when will there be another real alternative OS. I think when Microsoft gets split up like Ma Bell then we might get some flavors and innovation back.

Windos OS and Windows Apps... I wonder what the mini microsofts will be called?
Reply #2 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Boring Windows ? Not with Object Desktop
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think Longhorn seems quite interesting.
Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I've played around with most of those OS's and they try to be like each other more that apart. It doesn't matter what OS you have, since they all take care of the hardware interface. It's more about the GUI. Whats nice is that on Linux or Windows you can choose from many different shells or GUI enviroments. Windows is nice if you replace the boring explorer shell with Emerge Desktop, Blackbox, Litestep, Talisman, or one of the many other shells. And yes, Object Desktop and Objectdock also will spice up windows! I learned long ago, that I don't need to keep changing my OS to be happy. Just change your interface!
Reply #5 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Interesting read, and a pretty accurate summation. The current lookin'-for-a-patent-infringement-lawsuit climate doesn't do much to encourage innovation, either.
From what I've seen though, it's pretty much the same kind of progression that's happened with so many other areas of innovation. There's always a lot of diversity in the beginning as people approach a new technology from different angles, resulting in a lot of variety, but usually at the cost of overall reliability. Eventually things clump into fewer and fewer schools of thought, as early innovators are fall out of the picture due to lack of business skill, poor product, or any number of reasons.
Just as people decry the lack of variety in automobile design, music, television programming, etc... we see the same basic chain of events in the area of computer operating systems. It's not so much that there's a lack of fresh ideas, they're just showing up in other areas. As the article pointed out, OSes have become increasingly complex, and people and businesses (where most of the computing dollars are spent) don't have the patience or time to go with a rough-around-the-edges beta product for running their business or family finances. The guy who might have worked on a new OS 15 years ago now writes code for applications to run on an established OS. You don't have to look any further than this site to see the proof of that. Object Desktop components add the end functionality and customization that is lacking in the basic OS. Of course we'll see more of those features built in to newer versions of said OS (MS Windows in this case).
Mac was the first to go with a more user-friendly GUI. Microsoft developed Windows to give the IBMs and clones that Mac usability, built on top of DOS, and eventually evolving into the NT platform that 2000 and XP are built on.
Linux still holds a lot of that early development appeal for many, but they still strive for the same basic windows-type environment. The average PC user doesn't want a lot of the extra work that goes into setting up a Linux desktop, and they want to run all their familiar windows compatible applications. Linux has the geek-appeal factor, Mac has the artist/writer, somewhat elitist appeal, and MS Windows, for better or worse, has become the de-facto standard that people expect in their home PC.
For all the innovation MS has brought to the desktop, it can be argued that they have squashed even more by their business tactics. Who has the time, funding, or desire to go up against such a behemoth? Mac seems content to cater to their niche share of the market. Linux, while holding a lead in the server market, lacks the marketing infrastructure and polish to make them as ubiquitous as MS Windows.
That leaves everyone else to fall in the cracks as an also-ran, their innovations either ignored, or swallowed by one of the bigger fish.
Reply #6 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Interview with Mitch Kapor, his take on the good and bad sides of MS http://www6.tomshardware.com/business/20050223/index.html
(my above post would have been 1st comment if I hadn't stopped to fix supper in the middle of writing my mini'novel )
Reply #7 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Just look at the history of the Automobile....how many companies there were compared with how many 'conglomerates' remain.

Even the shell analogy is applicable...with kit cars made with proprietary underpinnings.

There's nothing at all new in this progression of 'evolution'.  It's all about the weak dying and the strong surviving, nobly or otherwise...

Reply #8 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Just look at the history of the Automobile


It's all about the weak dying and the strong surviving, nobly or otherwise


One word..
Tucker
Reply #10 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Do we really *need* more than two or three operating systems?

Operating systems aren't supposed to be about being exciting, they're supposed to A) be as efficient as possible and B) run as many different programs as possible. (Incidentally, that's why Windows is on top: most programs run fairly reliably on it.) It isn't supposed to be revolutionary; I just want it to *work*.
Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top
CP/M is still the greatest, most reliable, and securest operating system. There hasn't been anything new.

thpppt
Reply #12 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Do we really *need* more than two or three operating systems?

Do we need more than one brand of automobile?

Same issue, really...

Reply #13 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Isn't it strange, here I am on a "Windows" customization site, reading about operating systems while running Linux FC2! Its all about usability. The variety of programs make Windows the leader. The other alternatives are either more expensive or take more configuring, and the payoff being they are not prime targets for exploiting or viruses. And just as auto makers watch the reaction of potential customers at car shows, the computer industry watches what we, the public flock to in operating systems. Eye candy wins, as long as it function (somewhat).
Reply #14 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Operating systems, no matter how feature-rich, stable, or scalable (well, okay, maybe scalable) do not effect change in the world that the tech columnists and commentators have to work in. To be blunt, this sounds like another verse in the unending lament of the bored journalist, which, on its face, wouldn't bother me if it was.

Point being, we all know where OS/2 and its ilk are: six feet under, in graves of their own making. I think the industry is tripping over itself trying to figure out what they can do to generate buzz. There aren't any huge gaps in the capabilities of the dominant OSes to be cleverly worked around or masked with placating but bucolic nifty UIs. There aren't any category-killer apps emerging, "breaking out" and stirring the pot. The enterprise and productivity and major app suites are maturing, or in some cases, stagnating and picking up the software welfare cheque every month.

Open-source and how to put it back in its intended role is what software companies and media marketers should be working on right now, and hopefully they get on it before people start really losing money. Not that open-source isn't a commendable movement and of incredible value for certain applications and code advancement in general, but it's not the people who understand that we have to worry about. It's that guy's hemi-informed half-cocked little brother we have to put down before he starts dicking with company machines, convinced he's not only doing the right thing, but somehow opposing "the man", and even saving the company money using this panegyric cyber-hippie magical software that someone updates every single night(!). You get the idea.

Do I want more from my OS right now? No, not really. I have a creeping hunch that when I see Longhorn on my machines, I'll be spending just as much or more time deactivating or stripping down 'features' and arguing with more and more arbitrary 'security' measures as I have to for XP.
Reply #15 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Do we need more than one brand of automobile?

Same issue, really...


I disagree; the difference between between cars and OS's is that cars all run on the same kind of gas. Differnet opperating systems, on the other hand, require that each program be re-written to support it. That's why Mac's OS and Linux will remain fringe elements and other OS's will struggle to compete: You can't go to Best Buy and buy a game or a piece of software and expect it to run on anything but Windows.

If you can make an OS that will run every program that runs on windows, without failing any more often than windows does, then you'll have a viable competitor. Then, and only then.
Reply #16 from WinCustomize Forums Top
"MacOS X and Windows continue to evolve but there's nothing revolutionary in either one."

Nothing revolutionary? I guess you didn't watch the Tiger previews http://www.apple.com/macosx? Especially the Automator is actually quite revolutionary IMHO.
Reply #17 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I disagree; the difference between between cars and OS's is that cars all run on the same kind of gas. Differnet opperating systems, on the other hand, require that each program be re-written to support it.


Well that's why I think that should be changed in first, any program should be able to run in any OS.
Yeah I'm sure many people will say it's impossible but we all know it isn't.
Reply #18 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Excellent point EnsRegis.
Reply #19 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Windows has certainly come a long way since Windows 95. I think the main reason Windows is on top is because of the Server side and capabilities they have now. Active Directory was the smartest thing to come down the Microsoft pike making centralized administration a snap. Also having Windows XP clients makes it easier to manage as well in a Microsoft Network environment. However, I would love to see a Mac OS desktop version to run on an x86 machine for home users. I do believe there needs to be more competition against Microsoft to help bring their OS prices down and make it more affordable. Just my opinion!
Reply #20 from WinCustomize Forums Top
seriously, what do you expect? they're boring? i don't get it. operating systems don't exist to entertain. they're supposed to run your applications in a stable environment so that you can be productive. to me an os should be transparent. and os x was revolutionary with its amazing ui on top of a unix kernel. and until all applications are platform-independent (don't hold your breath), for starters, there's interoperability and compatiblity to consider (is java the answer? time will tell...). i've waited 18 years, but finally i can multitask with confidence, get my work done with minimal crashes. i guess i'd like to hear from those who are "bored" just what their vision is for what an operating system should be.
Reply #21 from WinCustomize Forums Top
comparing os's with cars is rather like comparing apples with oranges. cars don't have to talk to each other, and that's just one of many ways it's a flawed analogy.

If you can make an OS that will run every program that runs on windows, without failing any more often than windows does, then you'll have a viable competitor. Then, and only then.


software. right, that's what kept me from considering os x for the longest time. eventually i got a power mac g5 at the office, and it reaffirmed by belief about just how much of my time and psychic energy i was wasting on xp. it takes a hundred add ons like object desktop just to make it tolerable to look at. something screws up in some form or another every 5 minutes. i hated windows but didn't think there was a viable alternative. then i discovered there's a lot more software for the mac than i thought.... half the apps i use for productivity are java-based, so it doesn't matter. and there's office 2004 for the mac.... and ms owns virtual pc now, which is sweet, so it's all good. it's not your grandfather's apple anymore! now i'm changing platforms at home too and never looking back. windows... heh, good riddance.
Reply #22 from WinCustomize Forums Top

cars don't have to talk to each other,

and neither do OS's 'HAVE' to talk to each other.

To ram the analogy home harder...both a car and an OS are intended to FUNCTION as designed.  IF they do it 'well' then the question is STILL pertinent...why NEED more than one sort of either?

Reply #24 from WinCustomize Forums Top
If MS would only do a NEW windows and not carry along all of the baggage to make it backward compatible to 3.1 (which I can still run some of those programs on XP Pro!) Backward compatability is nice but have it as a detachable feature or 3rd party shell. That way if I want to ruin only 32 bit progs I can.

The thing I liked best about the AmigaOS/MacOS/BEOS and others was the flat out basic speed at which the could run and the programs didn't require a major piece of the hard drive...