# Non-Traditional OS



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Hi, 

I was just wondering how many folks around here are using nontraditional operating systems. Windows and Linux (unix variants) are mainstream, like Mac OS. Are there folks using any other OS and can you go into the good and bad related to it?

I am considering moving into this real but I'm not certain where to start.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Does Ubuntu count? Why are you looking to move and what type of work will the machine be for?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Mac OS
- Fedora Core running inside Mac OS
- WinXP running inside Mac OS

SUSE Linux Enterprise Server
- Helios UB for Macintosh sharing

Do any of these count as non-traditional?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

RF particle/spectral density and tinkering on multivariable calculus dealing with astrophysic. 

Isn't Ubuntu a unix variant?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Mac OS
> - Fedora Core running inside Mac OS
> - WinXP running inside Mac OS
> 
> ...


I was thinking like MasmOS or SolarOS or something less mainstream. Something I could use for high order calculations.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

smiddy said:


> RF particle/spectral density and tinkering on multivariable calculus dealing with astrophysic.


Um. Riiiiight. :eek2: :eek2: *tcusta00 steps backward slowly*

:lol:



smiddy said:


> Isn't Ubuntu a unix variant?


Linux, yes - not sure what you consider mainstream or not. I consider anything non Mac or Windows to be non-mainstream. But hey, what do I know. :lol:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You are way, way, WAAAY beyond me, brother.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

smiddy said:


> RF particle/spectral density and tinkering on multivariable calculus dealing with astrophysic.


:eek2: This coming from the guy who posted this....

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1524125&postcount=128

:lol:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> :eek2: This coming from the guy who posted this....
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1524125&postcount=128
> 
> :lol:


!rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I think Linux is being used enough now that it almost has to be considered mainstream. Granted the majority of home users are using Microsoft or Apple O/S... but people no longer make funny faces when you say Linux as if they have never heard of it.

Context may apply here too.

Unix, for example, is still in use on mainframe-type platforms... but would not (in my opinion) be considered mainstream for a home user... so if you ran Unix at home, I'd say that was non mainstream.

Not sure about here in the US anymore, but I'm pretty sure there are still places in Europe and possibly Asia that are using OS/2 at least for server-type situations. Could even be some workstations running it... IBM abandoned it many moons ago, but there could be some folks tinkering with it at home. Back in the day it was pretty stable when compared to Windows, but just not a lot of OS/2 app-development to keep it afloat.

There are also folks still running "classic" computers like the Commodore 64/128 or Tandy Color Computers... some of the Coco folks like something called OS/9.. I can't remember but there was something on the Commodore 128 that was sort-of DOS-like but different.


----------



## HighVoltage (Nov 27, 2007)

HDMe said:


> There are also folks still running "classic" computers like the Commodore 64/128 or Tandy Color Computers... some of the Coco folks like something called OS/9.. I can't remember but there was something on the Commodore 128 that was sort-of DOS-like but different.


Both the 64 and 128 had a version of BASIC but the 128 also had a mode to switch to CP/M using the Z80.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

smiddy said:


> RF particle/spectral density and tinkering on multivariable calculus dealing with astrophysic.
> 
> Isn't Ubuntu a unix variant?


Smiddy, perhaps you should be looking at eBay.. several years ago they sold a used Cray Supercomputer.. of course Ms. Smiddy may not appreciate liquid notrogen cooling systems around the house...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

smiddy said:


> I was thinking like MasmOS or SolarOS or something less mainstream. Something I could use for high order calculations.


Using Solaris 9, but don't remember "SolarOS" - actually works with SunOS 3 and 4.x.x long time ago too.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Using Solaris 9, but don't remember "SolarOS" - actually works with SunOS 3 and 4.x.x long time ago too.


Here a link for Solar OS: http://www.oby.ro/os/os_main.htm

There are quite a few more out there that I would consider not mainstream, though perhaps I am also considering noncomercial since I would call VAX/VMS mainstream too, but not really for home use.

There is also MenuetOS: http://www.menuetos.net/

These two are nonmainstream to me.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

HighVoltage said:


> Both the 64 and 128 had a version of BASIC but the 128 also had a mode to switch to CP/M using the Z80.


CP/M was what I was trying to think of... I kept having a brainfreeze with "PCM" because I've been checking out audio formats lately... and couldn't make the leap in my brain to CP/M that I was trying to remember earlier!


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I use OS X on my Mac, but have other boxen running Ubuntu and Windows XP and have experimented a bit with FreeBSD and BeOs (OS X is based on BSD so you get access to a lot of Unix commands in a terminal window). I think I still have some DOS floppies around but they have been gathering dust for many years. I even used CP/M 86 on a PC a few times in the distant past.

I started using Linux in 1994 and it has come a long way since then. It was much more hands-on in those days, but that was a good way to keep my brain challenged after retiring early from a technical job.


----------



## morphy (Jun 5, 2007)

Technically in the past I've used the following OS's (either personally or professionally):

OS/2
QNX
DOS/Windows 3.1 -> Vista Premium
(Various Windows Mobile OS's)
Linux - since the beginning, on Intel and Sparc, even before there were distrobutions. Distros mean nothing to me, its all the same guts.
SunOS 4 -> Solaris 10 + Solaris x86
FreeBSD
SCO Unix
HPUX
AIX

Currently I'm making do with Vista, XP, and Linux in the house.


----------



## HighVoltage (Nov 27, 2007)

Does the PalmOS count? What about other embedded OSs? Is this strictly limited to a "desktop" OS?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

HighVoltage said:


> Does the PalmOS count? What about other embedded OSs? Is this strictly limited to a "desktop" OS?


No, it isn't stricty limited to desktops OS, I would be interested in a RT OS that can run on x86, something I can make a pretty decent calculator from (with graphics).


----------



## HighVoltage (Nov 27, 2007)

smiddy said:


> No, it isn't stricty limited to desktops OS, I would be interested in a RT OS that can run on x86, something I can make a pretty decent calculator from (with graphics).


RTOS? That starts to limit the field...

Ok, so... VxWorks, Windows CE, LynxOS, QNX etc.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I wouldn't count Windows Mobile [CE] as RTOS.


----------



## HighVoltage (Nov 27, 2007)

P Smith said:


> I wouldn't count Windows Mobile [CE] as RTOS.


Although some may argue whether it is a "hard" or "soft" RTOS, it is still considered an RTOS.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

smiddy said:


> RF particle/spectral density and tinkering on multivariable calculus dealing with astrophysic.


Just one astrophysic?


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Just one astrophysic?


I honestly meant to place an s on the end, but I do type pretty fast and miss key strokes and sometimes write dislexicly on here.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

HighVoltage said:


> Although some may argue whether it is a "hard" or "soft" RTOS, it is still considered an RTOS.


I didn't mention soft/hard words - it's just not RTOS. 
(Have you try to use any smartphone utilizing the 'RTOS' ?).


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

P Smith said:


> I didn't mention soft/hard words - it's just not RTOS.
> (Have you try to use any smartphone utilizing the 'RTOS' ?).


How are threads handled within it?

BTW, here's another OS: DexOS

I actually helped with this one...


----------



## TheGreatLogan (May 25, 2008)

i use a laptop running Windows Vista And Linux-ubuntu-, here at work, its windows xp professional.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

desktop with GRUB booting XP professional, Ububtu 8.04 and MS DOS 6.22


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

At work have machines running Solaris and DEC64 TruUNIX.
Also have some old VMS machines. Can't say I'd recommend any of them. :lol:

It's great fun switching between Windows & UNIX and VMS and trying to remember syntax. :lol:

Embedded systems that we produce have a proprietary OS.


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

dettxw said:


> At work have machines running Solaris and DEC64 TruUNIX.
> Also have some old VMS machines. Can't say I'd recommend any of them. :lol:
> 
> It's great fun switching between Windows & UNIX and VMS and trying to remember syntax. :lol:
> ...


Why? OpenVMS is a thing of beauty. Cluster uptimes measured in decades. 

Me, personally, I use Mac OS X here at home. I've also got lots of Solaris and HP-UX experience.

If you want something UNIX-like with a bit of a different taste, try HP-UX. It looks weird at first, but once you understand what it's all about, there's lots of insanely cool stuff in there. (GlancePlus anyone?)


----------



## HighVoltage (Nov 27, 2007)

P Smith said:


> I didn't mention soft/hard words - it's just not RTOS.
> (Have you try to use any smartphone utilizing the 'RTOS' ?).


It is an RTOS. Try providing creditable evidence to the contrary, not just your opinion.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

HighVoltage said:


> It is an RTOS. Try providing creditable evidence to the contrary, not just your opinion.


How is the scheduling of threads handled?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

why wouldn't you use Linux?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> why wouldn't you use Linux?


He hasn't said, but could be he wants to experiment. Sometimes I miss the olden days where you had to write your own programs if you wanted the computer to do something.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

"Real-time is measuring the advance wave of a thermonuclear blast with a measurement package in the same hole 1M from the bomb itself. Everything else is near-real-time." (Quasi-quote from a guy who had real real-time issues.) 

The only reason to switch from a stripped linux/unix variant in a real-time environment is basically a controller or other device that has to respond to real external activities instantly and faster than interrupts can handle.

For any good, well written program just running calculations, Linux really is hard to beat. If you need to overcome the tiny, tiny Linux overhead, get a faster processor. Cheaper than the time you'd spend dorking around. (That is the engineer in me thinking cost vs. benefit.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Very pound to say, aside from OS/2, Windows, Windows NT, and Windows Mobile have been the only platforms I've ever used seriously.


----------



## HighVoltage (Nov 27, 2007)

smiddy said:


> How is the scheduling of threads handled?


I have not worked with the latest incarnation of CE but it mimicks quite a few others in its approach...Round robin in conjunction with preemptive thread priorities. So simply put the scheduler determines which thread should execute every OS tick based on priority. Are you looking for any specific details/features?


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> "Real-time is measuring the advance wave of a thermonuclear blast with a measurement package in the same hole 1M from the bomb itself. Everything else is near-real-time." (Quasi-quote from a guy who had real real-time issues.)
> ...
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


That would be 'real time' taken to an extreme.

More generally speaking, real time processing means data is acquired and processed quickly enough to record an event or control the outcome of an event.

--- CHAS


----------

