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

[free_electron]

iRMX

why ? because its robustness is very impressive ( and you can run other operating systems on top of it )
We had a machine in the waferfab that was controlled by an iRMX computer ( simple 386 box ) it had a GUI. every element of the gui was a program in itself. a batch file started the programs and told them where they had to display on the screen. if an element crashed it was restarted automatically and reconnected to its backend.

One day there was a popup status bar that said something along the lines of : Parity error in segment 0x02000:000 : BAD ram. the following processes have restarted at different location.

Essentially the kernel had detected a parity error due to a bad memory chip. it had restarted the processes that lived there but at a different memory location and had marked that memory segment as 'bad'. The machine kept on running perfectly fine. a few weeks later we had a scheduled maintenance , we shut down the pc , replaced the ram , and the machine did a selftest. report stated the memory was fixed and that was the end of it.

I don't know if this is true or not but i was told that the way iRMX works is : it essentially creates a virtual disk in ram. when a program is loaded it is is allocated a chunk of 'disk space'. it can't step out of those bounds. two 'files' exist per program. one containing the code, one containing the data.
if anything goes wrong the os can simple create a new drive, load the program from real drive, and move the 'data' file. the process then reconnects. there is a background process that syncs nonvolatile data to the real drive.

this makes the system extremely fault tolerant. the kernel of the iRMX is burned in a rom. (back in the day it sat in the same rom as the bios. so you boot directly from rom. so the kernel could not get corrupted either ( unless the rom got corrupted ). there was no copying to ram before running.

[metrologist]

XP was my favorite OS, but maybe because I never really used W2k. I got cobbled up in W98SE and once had ME.

I have a copy of W2k. If you make me blow half a weekend I'm gonna come find you. 

[T3sl4co1l]

iRMX

<snip>

Wow, sounds like a pain to program in, though!

If it had caught on, I'd imagine tools would've adapted to simplify that -- much the way that everything from Java and C# to Python and various scripting languages have adopted one-liner window frame interfaces, layouts and event-driven interfaces; despite the mess that Windows and Linux are.

It also sounds like the kernel (does that count as a microkernel?) might be /too/ simple, in that, if a program were accidentally given access to system calls, it could go and do whatever it wants anyway, with the kernel operations being little more than wrapper functions for very powerful instructions.  But, I don't know, obviously a brief description doesn't cover enough to say anything about that -- and I'm hardly an expert on OS programming besides...

Tim

[Sam Hobbs]

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.

I really did not like programming in DOS. No multitasking, no memory management. It barely qualified as an OS. Anyone happy with DOS for programming could easily be happy with many of the IDEs currently available. Of course when I tried doing DOS programming I was already spoiled by mainframe programming.

[Sam Hobbs]

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.

OS/2 was developed by the organization with much experience developing operating systems and compilers and big computers and many other things. Windows was developed by a company with developing how many operating systems?

[Sam Hobbs]

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.

That is an extremely important point. As far as I know, all computers sold to the consumers have Windows. Consumers do not have a choice. I think the world would change drastically if consumers were allowed to choose the operating system.

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

The majority of improvements in Windows 3.1 (from 3.0) were fixes IBM found when they created Windows emulation in OS/2. If there were incompatibility problems then they were highly likely caused by Microsoft's reluctance.

[Sam Hobbs]

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.

I had no problem getting it to work. I remember using the Microsoft C compiler under OS/2.

[Sam Hobbs]

nobody feels like turning on their computer in the morning.

No, not nobody.

[Sam Hobbs]

I thought you said Operating system....

Where is OS/2 in the list?
That would be my choice. OS/2

Me too. I did not see it counted in the initial post; was that supposed to be updated? Well probably too late now.

I apologize for the multiple replies. If there is a way to multi-quote then I missed seeing that. At least you know I at least glanced at all the replies, even the off-topic ones.

[Kjelt]

Six posts in a row, wow new record.

[technix]

Six posts in a row, wow new record.

While this forum supports it, some forum software (like Comsenz Discuz commonly seen in Chinese websites) lacked multiquotes, requiring each post have no more than one quote. Replying to multiple people required multiple posts in sequence with those software, and it can take time for people to get used to multiquote on this forum if they have never used it before.

[Jeroen3]

Soon we can add Windows 7 to the poll!

[Kjelt]

It would be nice if the forum software would disable quoting posts older than lets say a year.
Replying to posts from 2016 is 

[wilfred]

I have never used "multiquote". What is it?

I have no problem with people posting several replies in a row. It is the ping-pong bunfights I dislike.

[wilfred]

It would be nice if the forum software would disable quoting posts older than lets say a year.
Replying to posts from 2016 is 

Is there no-one who can use  properly?

What is wrong with replying to an old post? It hardly ever happens.

[tautech]

I have never used "multiquote". What is it?

While typing a post in the underlying post list there's Insert Quote for which you use again and agian for the previous posts to insert them one by one to answer each.
Let's add just yours like that:

It would be nice if the forum software would disable quoting posts older than lets say a year.
Replying to posts from 2016 is 

Is there no-one who can use  properly?

What is wrong with replying to an old post? It hardly ever happens.

[Kjelt]

It would be nice if the forum software would disable quoting posts older than lets say a year.
Replying to posts from 2016 is 

Is there no-one who can use  properly?

What is wrong with replying to an old post? It hardly ever happens.

My translation says that flogging a dead horse is an useless activity that will render no result.
Perhaps in Australia it has a different meaning.

Replying to posts that are over three years old is IME useless in that sence that the OP has forgotten all about it and perhaps not even looks at it anymore.
If your hobby is writing letters putting them in a bottle and posting them in the ocean you might experience it differently.

[wilfred]

My translation says that flogging a dead horse is an useless activity that will render no result.
Perhaps in Australia it has a different meaning.

That's part of it. But there is also the element of continuing to do something that might once have been useful or productive long past the time you should stop ie. because the horse has died.
An example would be endlessly pressing a point in an argument long after everyone has lost interest.

Posting once in a long inactive thread isn't quite the same thing.  It has to do with the effort required.  I'll grant you the difference is subtle.

[Kjelt]

Since I am not native english and our expression with similarity is:
Carrying buckets of water to the sea"
you might get that I did not get the second meaning, besides I don't like horses being flogged 

[Ampera]

Replying to posts that are over three years old is IME useless in that sence that the OP has forgotten all about it and perhaps not even looks at it anymore.
If your hobby is writing letters putting them in a bottle and posting them in the ocean you might experience it differently.

HAH SUCK IT, I'M STILL HERE!

*hardbass intensifies*

I must admit when I saw this, I wasn't consciously aware that the thing even existed, but I do now remember making it. I will update the master count to include everything everyone posted, because I have nothing better to do with my life.

[@rt]

Amiga OS, starting from 3.1.

[ebastler]

[...] continuing to do something that might once have been useful or productive long past the time you should stop ie. because the horse has died. 

In my book, discussing the benefits of Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP (in 2019!) does qualify. 

On the other hand, if we revisit this topic yet again in a few years, it might actually qualify for the "Vintage Computing" Section... 

[guenthert]

[..]

Replying to posts that are over three years old is IME useless in that sence that the OP has forgotten all about it and perhaps not even looks at it anymore.
[..]

  Don't assume then that each reply is solely directed at the OP, some posts might provide information valuable for other readers in the future, or they might just attempt to correct someone who was wrong on the Internet.

[Ampera]

I think it's fine if a post like this gets necrobumped, it's not some useless thread about a problem nobody cares about, a love for Vintage Computing can definitely be most exhibited by how one remembers the operating systems of the past.

That being said, I remember making this in General Chat, so I think someone must have moved it looks at dave

[Bruce Abbott]

As far as I know, all computers sold to the consumers have Windows. Consumers do not have a choice. I think the world would change drastically if consumers were allowed to choose the operating system.

They do have other choices - macOS or Linux. But even though Linux is free most still choose Windows, and not just because it comes with the machine. If it didn't they would ask for it.

Why? Because everyone knows that only Windows is fully Windows compatible. Use any other OS and sooner or later you will have a problem that can only be fixed by using Windows. Who wants the hassle? Nobody. The only people willing to put up with it are a few geeks, and diehards like me who refuse to touch Windows 10.

The reason people don't have a 'choice' is not that PC manufacturers deny them one - it's because they don't want a choice. They just want something that works the same way everyone else's does - and who can blame them?