Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

List all of the operating systems you have used!

bunnspecial said:
Not to nit pick, but let's not forget the horrible abomination known as Windows ME that came between 2000 and XP.

2000 was NT based, as was XP. ME was Dos based, like the previous 9x releases.
Click to expand...

That's not nitpicking at all. ME was the last of the 9x line, though it came out roughly around the same time as Win2000. It was the consumer OS, and 2k was meant for enterprise.

And yeah, it sucked.
 
Renzatic said:
Nope. From the first version on, there hasn't been any underpinnings of DOS in any of the NT systems. The only thing that's left in Windows that's even remotely DOS related is its directory structure and command line, but that's only DOS-like, not actually DOS.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the code of NT is an upgrade from Windows 9x, changing partially the structure and all of that. It's still related to MS-DOS.
 
garirry said:
Yeah but the code of NT is an upgrade from Windows 9x, changing partially the structure and all of that. It's still related to MS-DOS.
Click to expand...

Nope again. The first NT came out a couple years before Windows 95. You could say that the consumer versions of Windows, from 1.0 up to ME were basically glorified GUI shells for DOS (though only sorta in the latter examples). NT was its own self contained thing, with an entirely different kernel, and was entirely 32-bit.

Up until the later days, when developers started making proper 32-bit apps for the 9x line instead of DOS apps in a window, the two OSes weren't even compatible. And that didn't start happening regularly up until the days of 2000/ME.
 
Renzatic said:
Nope again. The first NT came out a couple years before Windows 95. You could say that the consumer versions of Windows, from 1.0 up to ME were basically glorified GUI shells for DOS (though only sorta in the latter examples). NT was its own self contained thing, with an entirely different kernel, and was entirely 32-bit.

Up until the later days, when developers started making proper 32-bit apps for the 9x line instead of DOS apps in a window, the two OSes weren't even compatible. And that didn't start happening regularly up until the days of 2000/ME.
Click to expand...

About the only think NT and Windows 95 have in common is that the GUI of NT 4.0 and Windows 95 is virtually identical.

NT 3.1 to 3.5 look a whole lot like Windows 3.1.

GUIs don't necessarily give a clue to the underpinnings, though. On the Mac side of things, OS X Server 1.0/1.2, as well as predecessor versions of Rhapsody and the first two developer previews of OS X share the "platinum" GUI of OS 9, despite the fact they effectively are evolutions of NeXTstep(Unix). It wasn't until OS X DP3 that the "Aqua" interface appeared.
 
garirry said:
All Windows systems are based on MS-DOS, while all Mac and Linux systems are based on Unix. I'm not sure whether what he said is correct or not.
Click to expand...

Unix, yes.

Renzatic said:
...sprocket layers? The hell's that?

These days, randomly propagating viruses and worms are rare to practically nonexistent, and anything you do come across requires direct permission to effect any changes (barring the occasional permission elevations exploit), so I'd say the weakest point in security for both OSes are the persons using it.

And Windows hasn't been based on DOS since the 9x days. From XP on, it's been all NT.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was just security layers? :eek:
 
bunnspecial said:
GUIs don't necessarily give a clue to the underpinnings, though.
Click to expand...

True. Though I do think the versions of 9x and NT did share some common threads, and did have some software compatibility, so long as you were using proper 32-bit apps. Like Windows 2000 could run a good amount of 9x software by that time, which was one of the things that made it so popular back in the day.

Huntn said:
Bingo! So, do they make OSX more secure than Windows?
Click to expand...

I kinda like sprocket layers. Makes it sound kinda cool.

...but no. Socket layers aren't OS specific. It's something built into the network stack, I believe, and is common across anything that can get on the internet.
 
Windows 95, 98SE, 2000, XP, Vista, 7.
OSX Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks.
 
Renzatic said:
True. Though I do think the versions of 9x and NT did share some common threads, and did have some software compatibility, so long as you were using proper 32-bit apps. Like Windows 2000 could run a good amount of 9x software by that time, which was one of the things that made it so popular back in the day.



I kinda like sprocket layers. Makes it sound kinda cool.

...but no. Socket layers aren't OS specific. It's something built into the network stack, I believe, and is common across anything that can get on the internet.
Click to expand...

Sockets connect applications to a network protocol.
 
Renzatic said:
True. Though I do think the versions of 9x and NT did share some common threads, and did have some software compatibility, so long as you were using proper 32-bit apps. Like Windows 2000 could run a good amount of 9x software by that time, which was one of the things that made it so popular back in the day.
Click to expand...

That is true. I actually have to give it to Microsoft in terms of software backward compatibility-especially in 2000 and later. I never had issues running DOS programs seamlessly. When my Dad got out of the tax return business in 2006, the program he used(which, of course, was under active development and had to be bought every year due to ever-changing tax laws) was still DOS based and worked perfectly on 2000 and XP. It's actually, IMO, much better than "classic mode" in OS X.

Of course, NT 4.0 was actually compiled for several architectures, although this tends to be forgotten until someone finds a copy marked "For PowerPC processors" and gets the bright idea to try installing it on and old Mac. By the way, this won't work, and even if it did there's almost no Windows PPC software.
 
Operating Systems I've Used


Desktop Operating Systems:

MS-DOS
DR-DOS
UNIX
IBM OS/2
LINUX - too many distros to list
Windows Client from 3.1 - 8.1
Windows Server from 3.1 - 6.3
Mac from System 7.0 - OS X 10.10



Mobile Operating Systems:

Openmoko Linux
Neo FreeRunner
MeeGo
Symbian Series 60, 80, 90
UIQ
MOAP
Windows CEO
Pocket PC 2000, 2002
Windows Mobile 2003 SE
Windows Mobile 5, 6, 6.1
iOS ver: 1.x - 8.2
Android 1.5 - 5.1
 
LOTS ...

OS/400
Z/OS
Linux (Slackware back in the 90's, then lots and lots of different ones since ... too many to mention accurately, but the ones that really matter from recent time: SLES and RHEL.)
Windows (all of them)
DOS (MS only from 5.0, nothing from earlier. Including IBM PC-DOS, and other miscellaneous variants.)
OS/2
SGI IRIX (right up until they folded)
HP-UX
IBM AIX
Sun Solaris
NCR UNIX (SVR4 variant)
SCO OpenServer (don't get me started on them)
Novel Netware
BeOS
OS X
ESX/ESXi

Never kept track of my mobile OS usage. Had a BlackBerry Pearl before I switched to iPhone with iOS 4. Been using iPhone ever since. Prior to the Pearl, I had a Nokia candy bar phone, then an LG flip style, and then a Motorola RAZR. Had each of them for about 2-3 years each. (I usually upgrade on that frequency.)

Oh yeah ... I forgot about the Google (ASUS) Nexus 7 sitting on the desk. So, Android too, I guess. Came with 4.x, but just recently downloaded an update to 5.x. (That was my attempt to see how life was on the other side of the fence. The grass was not greener.)
 
Last edited:
OT: ports, Unix domain sockets

Off-topic from lists of operating systems …

Renzatic said:
… the one thing that's always confused me (and I don't know why I haven't looked it up yet, probably because I never think about it until it comes up) is the difference between a socket and a port. I tend to use the terms interchangeably, though I don't think they're quite the same thing.
Click to expand...

I'd like to post this reply to a more appropriate topic … recent fear of removal/suspension wherever I post, here goes …

Unix Sockets Tutorial (2008-01-15)

UNIX domain sockets (2014-07-07)

Tech Deviancy - Demystifying Unix Domain Sockets (2006-02, updated 2011-11-11)

That third article is relatively dense.

For what it's worth, I'd digest the first two articles, then glance at outputs from the command suggested at http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/194554/13260

HTH
 
Gonna show my age, but...

Mac:

Mac OS 8, 8.5, 8.6
Mac OS 9, 9.1, 9.2
Mac OS X Public Beta, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10

iOS:

iOS 5, 6, 7, and 8 (I was a late adopter)

Windows:

Windows 3.1
Windows 95
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows ME
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8
Windows 8.1
Windows 10

Android:

Ice Cream Sandwich, Jelly Bean, Kit Kat, Lollipop
 
Renzatic said:
It must've been awhile since you last used Linux, cuz I'd consider Gnome one of the best looking and functioning desktops I've ever seen, up to and including OSX.

It's minimal, clean, easy to use, and snazzeh as all hell naw. Here's a really dry video with some soft jazz showing off some of the new features coming with Fedora 22.
Click to expand...

I have used Gnome 2 and 3. I will admit I haven't used them full time for long periods of time, but I would say enough to form an opinion. When it comes to design, layout, and productivity, opinions can be subjective. When it comes to stability and speed, its fairly objective. The OS X design and layout is far superior to Gnome 2 or 3. I prefer Gnome 2 to Gnome 3. I think this is more personal preference. However, I also tried Fedora 21 before I installed Linux Mint 17.1 on the same hardware. Mint is visibly faster. I also prefer Cinnamon to Gnome 3.
 
bunnspecial said:
Of course, NT 4.0 was actually compiled for several architectures, although this tends to be forgotten until someone finds a copy marked "For PowerPC processors" and gets the bright idea to try installing it on and old Mac. By the way, this won't work, and even if it did there's almost no Windows PPC software.
Click to expand...

There was even a NT compiled to run on DEC's Alpha RISC processor, and I think also the MIPS RISC processor. And as I remember, Silicon Graphics (SGI) had their own version, even though they used Intel.
 
grahamperrin said:
Off-topic from lists of operating systems …

HTH
Click to expand...

Well, it's sorta on topic. But thanks, I'll check them out. :D

blackf77t said:
I have used Gnome 2 and 3. I will admit I haven't used them full time for long periods of time, but I would say enough to form an opinion. When it comes to design, layout, and productivity, opinions can be subjective. When it comes to stability and speed, its fairly objective. The OS X design and layout is far superior to Gnome 2 or 3. I prefer Gnome 2 to Gnome 3. I think this is more personal preference. However, I also tried Fedora 21 before I installed Linux Mint 17.1 on the same hardware. Mint is visibly faster. I also prefer Cinnamon to Gnome 3.
Click to expand...

It's a very subjective topic, totally down to individual taste. I'll admit that Gnome 3 is weird, as in it's pretty skewed off from the usual desktop paradigms we've all come to know and love over the years. I mean hell, it doesn't even have a minimize/maximize button on the title bars by default. It does a lot of things very differently.

But I'll say this, once you get used to it, it works really well, and works really fast. It's not different for the sake of being different. Everything has a rhyme and reason to it. I ended up liking it quite a bit once I got a handle on it.
 
monokakata said:
There was even a NT compiled to run on DEC's Alpha RISC processor, and I think also the MIPS RISC processor. And as I remember, Silicon Graphics (SGI) had their own version, even though they used Intel.
Click to expand...

We still have some SGI systems kicking around the department. Most of them are Octane-series systems, and use MIPS processors. The only Intel SGI system we have is an Altix 3000 MiniCluster with(I think) about 40 Itanium processors in it.

All the MIPS SGI systems we have are still running IRIX(at least as far as I know). Most of them are used with at least some regularity, as they have high-dollar and powerful protein modeling software on them.

I'm not sure what the minicluster is running-I actually just "found" it a few weeks ago when I was asked to help clean out(meaning go in and take whatever you want that's not inventoried) computer lab. It was powered on(unlike everything else in the room) but apparently unused. I'd guess it's probably running Red Hat, as everything else in the lab(including the quad Pentium II workstations, each with 16 sticks of 128mb RAM) was running that.
 
Wrote Fortran on 80-column punchcards from IBM 360 in the late seventies. No idea what the OS was.

Apple II/Integer BASIC
6502 Assembler
ACE Forth
Sinclair BASIC
DOS
Windows 3.0/3.1
Windows 95
Windows XP
Windows *
Apple System 9
Solaris
FreeBSD
Various GNU/Linux distros
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back