If you could pick any EOL operating system to revive, what would it be?

[Ampera]

My gripe about MS is that they constantly change things that don't need to be changed.  Ever try to find the version in Office these days?  hint - the old reliable help about will not cut it.  It seems they change things just to be trendy and stuff you knew you have to constantly relearn to stay on the MS trendy bandwagon.  Add to that that they keep adding and adding and adding more complication and unnecessary features and code and libraries to do this and to do that and it is no wonder their OS's are extremely unwieldy, bloated, and insecure.  Security is another thing that irritates me to no end.  There is no reason that things have to be designed to be insecure with ports open for no good reason.  Open the ports that need to be opened, for those bullet proof them.  How many mechanisms does MS have for filesharing?  It feels like 15!

My answer, bring back DOS.  I loved programming DOS.  No crazy API that works differently in different versions of windows, no controls, no message loops.

Yeah I hate that about MS, and it seems all the other companies are doing the same.  Google is getting really bad too, they change stuff like Youtube all the time and it's always for the worst.

It would be like car manufacturers randomly changing where the steering wheel is, or trying to replace it with something else.  It's a proven way, don't touch it.

As for XP I did not mind it, it was a DISASTER when it first got released though, part of the issue was that it was simply too bloated for the hardware available at the time.  It would ship on a machine that has like 265MB of ram and a single core processor.  It would be slow out of the box.  I don't know how many XP -> win2k conversions I did for people back then. 

95 was ok, I think... but I was very new to computers when I played with it.  I did use win 3.11 for a bit too.  I kinda miss that one.  I should see what it takes to install that in a VM just for fun.

I have it running fine in DOSBox. Due to the emulation and not virtualization factor of DOSBox, it doesn't run that great, but for idle messing around it's fine. Virtualization works, but it can be too fast to run some stuff.

I am currently working on building an 80486 VLB based (cringe going through the f**ing roof here) system for games and stuff, to get a proper old time experience (I am collector).

[AlxDroidDev]

Actually, one OS I wish had a better luck was BeOS. Too bad it was shut down, because it was promising and beautiful-looking.  Although it was ended several years ago, people are trying to revive it with Haiku OS, but it just isn't the same.

OTOH, one OS I am glad we don't see anymore is Symbian. Developing for Symbian was a huge PITA, even with J2ME.

[AlxDroidDev]

The problem with XP is the sheer amount of bloat it has. It doesn't need most of the stuff it has.  (...)

Actually, tweaking with XP was incredibly easy. Just edit a couple .INF files and you can remove any unwanted bloatware. I like OSes that can be tweaked. I, for one, only migrated from XP to Windows 7 after W7SP1 was released. Until then I had absolutely no need to leave XP. I am still on W7SP1.

[eugenenine]

The problem with XP was it didn't really remove stuff, it hid it but it was still there.

My biggest issue was the lack of ability to change the swap.

In winsows 2000 I ran vmware and had 4 guest OS's running at once by allocating just a bit of ram to each and setting the swap registry key so it would not swap until it ran out of ram.  I 'upgraded' to xp and it started swapping as soon as I opened the first guest,  I ended up using one of my techet cases to ask MS support why it wasn't doing what the reg key said.  Turns out in a non-public kb article they documented that they dropped support for the ability to control when it would swap.  I ended up with a linux host so I could control swap.  So my nice high end workstation with XP and 16G of ram couldn't run virtual guests as well as my $300 eeepc running linux.

[timb]

The problem with XP was it didn't really remove stuff, it hid it but it was still there.

I use nLite to solve that problem. I've got a custom ISO of XP, with SP2 and *all* the updates fully integrated (there's a little command line app, which I forget the name of, that will automatically download all of the updates direct from MS for you; nLite will, if possible, install the update into the ISO, failing that it will simply add the update's installer to the ISO and run it silently at the last stage of the OS installation).

My ISO also has pretty much all the bloat removed, including IE, Windows Media Player, language packs, trials, built-in apps, unneeded drivers, themes, etc. All but the essential services have been disabled as well.

Install size is close to 600MB. It's *very* fast! nLite is pretty damn awesome!

[daybyter]

I actually have a CP/M system laying around... Sorta...

It's the Commodore 128, with full VIC-II compatibility (NTSC only), and CGA (RGBi colour space) compatible graphics with a Z80, Bootable CP/M from disk, and I think full compatibility with CP/M programs of the time. Although I am not sure, I currently have it on my nightstand.

I work on something similar. C= cp/m module in a FPGA. So cp/m is definitely not read for me. 

[eugenenine]

The problem with XP was it didn't really remove stuff, it hid it but it was still there.

I use nLite to solve that problem. I've got a custom ISO of XP, with SP2 and *all* the updates fully integrated (there's a little command line app, which I forget the name of, that will automatically download all of the updates direct from MS for you; nLite will, if possible, install the update into the ISO, failing that it will simply add the update's installer to the ISO and run it silently at the last stage of the OS installation).

My ISO also has pretty much all the bloat removed, including IE, Windows Media Player, language packs, trials, built-in apps, unneeded drivers, themes, etc. All but the essential services have been disabled as well.

Install size is close to 600MB. It's *very* fast! nLite is pretty damn awesome!

Seems like a lot of work just to make windows 2000

[Ampera]

The problem with XP was it didn't really remove stuff, it hid it but it was still there.

I use nLite to solve that problem. I've got a custom ISO of XP, with SP2 and *all* the updates fully integrated (there's a little command line app, which I forget the name of, that will automatically download all of the updates direct from MS for you; nLite will, if possible, install the update into the ISO, failing that it will simply add the update's installer to the ISO and run it silently at the last stage of the OS installation).

My ISO also has pretty much all the bloat removed, including IE, Windows Media Player, language packs, trials, built-in apps, unneeded drivers, themes, etc. All but the essential services have been disabled as well.

Install size is close to 600MB. It's *very* fast! nLite is pretty damn awesome!

The thing is Windows 2000 still runs better and doesn't bog down as easily. And it's still a matter of you need to put in a lot of work and effort into really cleaning out XP, and just get an unstable and more prone to barfing version of Windows 2000. Windows 2000 had nothing wrong with it from the install. I could install it, update it, and boom I am done and done for good. No custom versions, no this  no that, just get SP4, drivers, and whatever software I wanted.

[Paul Moir]

I loved programming DOS.  No crazy API...

Wait, what? You mean the API you avoided using as much as you could except for maybe file access because it was so unbelievably slow or incapable?   The one where you couldn't write a whole class of programs without using undocumented APIs?

But Windows 2000/XP?  Pshaw, such a bourgeois operating system.  Yes, bring back DOS before it.  Me, Coherent 3, with the book.

[Howardlong]

For the DOS lovers, surely not? Hours and days pissed away fannying around with config.sys and autoexec.bat to get your network working at the same time as a SCSI adapter.

There were so many kludges, particularly with breaking the 640KB barrier, XMS, EMS, EEMS. But then there were TSRs.

Remember Software Carousel?!

As a programmer, I much preferrd OS/2 to Windows, the API was much cleaner in OS/2, whereas Windows was and remains a seemingly randomly thrown together hotch potch of functions.

DOS though, thanks, but no thanks!

[timb]

The problem with XP was it didn't really remove stuff, it hid it but it was still there.

I use nLite to solve that problem. I've got a custom ISO of XP, with SP2 and *all* the updates fully integrated (there's a little command line app, which I forget the name of, that will automatically download all of the updates direct from MS for you; nLite will, if possible, install the update into the ISO, failing that it will simply add the update's installer to the ISO and run it silently at the last stage of the OS installation).

My ISO also has pretty much all the bloat removed, including IE, Windows Media Player, language packs, trials, built-in apps, unneeded drivers, themes, etc. All but the essential services have been disabled as well.

Install size is close to 600MB. It's *very* fast! nLite is pretty damn awesome!

The thing is Windows 2000 still runs better and doesn't bog down as easily. And it's still a matter of you need to put in a lot of work and effort into really cleaning out XP, and just get an unstable and more prone to barfing version of Windows 2000. Windows 2000 had nothing wrong with it from the install. I could install it, update it, and boom I am done and done for good. No custom versions, no this  no that, just get SP4, drivers, and whatever software I wanted.

I don't think that's really true. A lot of people here looking at Win2k through rose colored glasses, if you ask me. Yes, it was a nice OS. Yes, it was stable. Yes, it was *fairly* secure (as far as Windows goes). But it wasn't by any means fast!

(Remember how long it took to boot up on hardware of the day? It could take 5 minutes or more until you were at the desktop! XP fixed that by continuing to load services after the login prompt appeared, instead of loading all the services before showing a login screen like 2k did.)

Anyway, my last post was aimed at those of you who want the Windows 2000 experience, with the added benefit of being able to run somewhat modern software. 2k stopped being supported as a target platform for the majority of software at least 10 years ago.

But, with nLite, Windows XP and about an hour of free time, you can have yourself what amounts to Windows 2000 Version 2.

[SeanB]

XP SP3 was fairly robust, but the original version was horrid, full of bugs, crashes and with parts that did not work, or were buggy as all hell on certain hardware combinations. Only after a good number of updates, newer drivers and the roll up into the service packs did it become a solid system, and even now there are still places where the code is Win95 code basically there with no changes.

[Ampera]

The problem with XP was it didn't really remove stuff, it hid it but it was still there.

I use nLite to solve that problem. I've got a custom ISO of XP, with SP2 and *all* the updates fully integrated (there's a little command line app, which I forget the name of, that will automatically download all of the updates direct from MS for you; nLite will, if possible, install the update into the ISO, failing that it will simply add the update's installer to the ISO and run it silently at the last stage of the OS installation).

My ISO also has pretty much all the bloat removed, including IE, Windows Media Player, language packs, trials, built-in apps, unneeded drivers, themes, etc. All but the essential services have been disabled as well.

Install size is close to 600MB. It's *very* fast! nLite is pretty damn awesome!

The thing is Windows 2000 still runs better and doesn't bog down as easily. And it's still a matter of you need to put in a lot of work and effort into really cleaning out XP, and just get an unstable and more prone to barfing version of Windows 2000. Windows 2000 had nothing wrong with it from the install. I could install it, update it, and boom I am done and done for good. No custom versions, no this  no that, just get SP4, drivers, and whatever software I wanted.

I don't think that's really true. A lot of people here looking at Win2k through rose colored glasses, if you ask me. Yes, it was a nice OS. Yes, it was stable. Yes, it was *fairly* secure (as far as Windows goes). But it wasn't by any means fast!

(Remember how long it took to boot up on hardware of the day? It could take 5 minutes or more until you were at the desktop! XP fixed that by continuing to load services after the login prompt appeared, instead of loading all the services before showing a login screen like 2k did.)

Anyway, my last post was aimed at those of you who want the Windows 2000 experience, with the added benefit of being able to run somewhat modern software. 2k stopped being supported as a target platform for the majority of software at least 10 years ago.

But, with nLite, Windows XP and about an hour of free time, you can have yourself what amounts to Windows 2000 Version 2.

I had an AMD Athlon XP+ based computer that ran Windows 2000 (dual boot with 98) with era specific hardware (actually even worse, the largest drive I had was I think 40GB in size) and 512 MB of memory (98SE crashes when using more, so I didn't bother swapping it out on the casual occasion I wanted to use Windows 2000) and not counting the BIOS faffing about, it booted faster then my installation of Windows 7 does on an SSD, counting from first and second loading menu, login screen, and loading the desktop, it took about 10-15 seconds (And it had stuff on it, it wasn't a clean install) while my windows box can take 30+ seconds to get everything situated and working.

Windows 2000 was fast to boot, fast to use, VERY stable, and didn't have the habit of sticking half your system memory up it's arse and never give it back until you restart.

[eugenenine]

Yeah, 2000 booted plenty fast for me as well.  XP gave the login prompt sooner but then took a lot longer as it was still trying to start services while it was also trying to login so their plan backfired as it took even longer since everything was fighting for disk access.

[Ampera]

Yeah, 2000 booted plenty fast for me as well.  XP gave the login prompt sooner but then took a lot longer as it was still trying to start services while it was also trying to login so their plan backfired as it took even longer since everything was fighting for disk access.

The thing is, XP had to be restarted about once a day, otherwise most of your system memory is allocated to nothing, half your CPU threads are leaking, and it takes ten minutes to open up a bloody internet browser.

[eugenenine]

* eugenenine thinks those that say XP even with SP3 was decent never used 2k.  XP Sp3 still had more problems than 2k beta did.

I didn't see anyone wanting to revive OS/2

[Ampera]

* eugenenine thinks those that say XP even with SP3 was decent never used 2k.  XP Sp3 still had more problems than 2k beta did.

I didn't see anyone wanting to revive OS/2

I personally never used OS/2 but there is an LGR Tech Tales episode on why nobody ever used it. It was too expensive, didn't come with any computers, and seemed to be a mostly useless upgrade.

I have also heard stories of it's MS-DOS and Windows compatibility being not that great.

[eugenenine]

We had a couple customers at the PC shop wanting OS2.  One tech spent a long time trying to get it to work on an actual IBM PC.  Tech support with IBM couldn't even get help.

I only mentioned it to try and get the thread back on topic somewhat.

[digsys]

The thing is, XP had to be restarted about once a day, otherwise most of your system memory is allocated to nothing, half your CPU threads are leaking, and it takes ten minutes to open up a bloody internet browser. 

errrrrrr yeah ... If you say so .. I've been running 30-40 sites for the last 8 yrs (SP3) and 50+ sites (SP1-2) 7 yrs before that. NEVER have a problem with speed /
corruption / bloating etc etc Yes, there were teething issues with SP1-2, but nothing that couldn't be fixed, and I certainly don't recall ANY operating system that
I've used that didn't. Mebbe you had a bad disk :-)

[nctnico]

(Remember how long it took to boot up on hardware of the day? It could take 5 minutes or more until you were at the desktop! XP fixed that by continuing to load services after the login prompt appeared, instead of loading all the services before showing a login screen like 2k did.)

I don't know what sucks more: an OS which boots slowly or an OS which isn't ready when it is supposed to be ready. IIRC XP was unusable for the first few minutes anyway so the quick start was just beads and mirrors.

[John Coloccia]

* eugenenine thinks those that say XP even with SP3 was decent never used 2k.  XP Sp3 still had more problems than 2k beta did.

I didn't see anyone wanting to revive OS/2

I personally never used OS/2 but there is an LGR Tech Tales episode on why nobody ever used it. It was too expensive, didn't come with any computers, and seemed to be a mostly useless upgrade.

I have also heard stories of it's MS-DOS and Windows compatibility being not that great.

My first job out of graduate school was radar work that had an OS/2 front end/system software. It definitely had it's quirks, and wasn't what I would call robust. I seem to recall there being one system wide message queue, so you could effectively hang the whole system (or anything that depends on a message queue) by one program simply not servicing the queue. I don't think that was much different than early Windows version, but certainly disappointing for something that was supposed to be more advanced.

But it wasn't terrible for the time. It was primitive, and support for hardware was practically non-existent unless IBM sold it. I seem to recall the IDE I was using to be incredibly slow and annoying. It was so bad that all of us used Boxer (a text editor, still around today actually) and just used the IDE to compile. Maybe we used it command line...I don't remember anymore.

Anyhow, no fond memories of that time.

[eugenenine]

The thing is, XP had to be restarted about once a day, otherwise most of your system memory is allocated to nothing, half your CPU threads are leaking, and it takes ten minutes to open up a bloody internet browser. 

errrrrrr yeah ... If you say so .. I've been running 30-40 sites for the last 8 yrs (SP3) and 50+ sites (SP1-2) 7 yrs before that. NEVER have a problem with speed /
corruption / bloating etc etc Yes, there were teething issues with SP1-2, but nothing that couldn't be fixed, and I certainly don't recall ANY operating system that
I've used that didn't. Mebbe you had a bad disk :-)

Running web sites on XP?
I've had several company provided XP machines as well as bought a few for my wife and kids and had to support family members, XP rarely goes more than a few days without needing rebooted.

I finally convinced my parents to stop using IE and using firefox, now the malware cleanup is every 6 months instead of every month.

[T3sl4co1l]

I regularly ran XP for a week at a time, perhaps several weeks.  Usually updates would come in by then, necessitating a reboot.

Throughout the history of Windows, stability has largely been a matter of two things: shitty hardware (with equally shitty drivers), and shitty programs.

Back in my Win98SE days, I seem to recall the most frequent offender was Acrobat Reader 6.  If I was reading a lot of datasheets, I might need to reboot twice in one day!  Most days, I shut down for the night anyway, which was fine as it started up fairly quickly (being on rather new hardware by then, compared to the OS).  I don't remember if I ever went more than a week without a reboot.

I have a stock IBM Pentium with Win95 on it, of course I barely use it, and not for many diverse programs, but I can't seem to attribute any problems to the hardware or drivers, that's not due to simple bitrot (a lot of programs do happen to be suffering from file system errors..).

I've never had a problem with leaving WinXP or 7 running for weeks on end, with the random reset almost always being the fault of updates, bad programs (e.g., a game that captures the display, crashes, and the desktop doesn't return), or power failures.

I'm not saying everyone should have this experience, because obviously, most haven't; but I want to remind those that haven't, that their cases are exceptional, and stable operation, with a good combination of hardware and drivers and programs, is perfectly possible.

And by the way, all those billboards that BSoD'd?  Process those through this filter for a moment.  What do they have in common?  Custom display hardware.  What else do most companies have in common?  Bad drivers.  So, it should figure that the most [publicly] visible displays are also the least stable!

Tim

[Delta]

Just out of interest, why are people running desktops 24/7?  ("I went weeks without a reboot")

[Ampera]

Just out of interest, why are people running desktops 24/7?  ("I went weeks without a reboot")

Because even though it would save power, nobody feels like turning on their computer in the morning.