Talk:Comparison of real-time operating systems

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

expansion ideas

More columns for

royalties and fees
open source or closed source
approximate deployment numbers
initial date of development

—EncMstr (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. What about these? (see also: Template:Infobox OS)

Company/Developer
Programmed in
Notes/Comments

Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about:

Latest release
Latest release date

This should help to sort out active projects from old/dead projects or systems interesting only as historical reference.

N'SallaNuto (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The release number often creates a quagmire of updates. Anyway, the status column is intended to reflect whether it is still supported and under development. —EncMstr (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

external links from original article

This hive of external links used to be in the original article before the split; they should be incorporated into the appropriate entries in this article.

—EncMstr (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are WindowsCE and SymbianOS really RTOS ?

I am not sure those can be classified as "RTOS", possible targets are embedded devices but this alone does not give them real time capabilities. Probably we should put them among the general purpose operating systems.N'SallaNuto (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, operating systems that target embedded devices are often incorrectly described as "RTOS".

However:

The SymbianOS article says "Later OS iterations ... notably the introduction of a real-time kernel" and "Symbian OS EKA2 supports ... real-time response".

The Windows CE article says "Windows CE conforms to the definition of a real-time operating system".

I think an OS whose latest version is real-time should be listed here as a real-time operating system, even though the earliest versions were not real-time.

If you have some evidence that these OSes are *not* real-time, please put it in those articles and specifically state " ... is not a real-time OS ...". But as long as the article for an OS claims it is "real-time", it needs to stay on this list.

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with anon IP. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the web for some info regarding WinCE RT capabilities, I found some documentation and it seems that since version 3 it supports priority inversion avoidance mechanisms and other features required for a RTOS. Probably a note about this (version 3 or above) should be added to the article and/or the list. N'SallaNuto (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSEK

OSEK is a standard for a certain type of operating systems, not an actual implementation... (compare with POSIX for traditional operating systems) TERdON (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another entry in the table like that too, though I don't immediately see it. However, I've taken the liberty of filling in the table appropriately. Comments? —EncMstr (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]