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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

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This should help to sort out active projects from old/dead projects or systems interesting only as historical reference.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

ARTOS: duplicate names, different operating systems

Some operating systems are entirely different but use the same name. For example "ARTOS" is used by Locamation, and by Mike Fowler for their respective OSes, (and I believe a third company as well). But these OSes are as different as Windows CE and Symbian OS.

At the moment these two differnt OSes are merged to the same line. In my opinion these should be on separate lines. Andrec79 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If you know enough about them, please generate unique names for them and divide the entry into multiple lines accordingly. Something like ARTOS (mfg name) and ARTOS (whatever). —EncMstr (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linux RT patch

Where is the "Linux RT patch" (PREEMPT_RT) by Ingo Molnar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.31.5 (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable entries

There seems to be a slow edit war involving removing/reinstating RTOS entries in bulk, apparent on notability grounds. While the notability policy applies to articles, it does not apply to individual entries in an article. For example, many athletic sport articles which do not list yearly winners would be considered incomplete even if each winner and competition was not notable. —EncMstr (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly as it relates to non article entries, this is guideline applies to lists, The Purpose of Lists in wikipedia is used for internal navigation and "...lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space. ". Wikipedia has 7,007,848 and is optimized for readers over editors, redlinks and non article entries are unhelpful to readers. Non-article entries do not add content or meaning to the encyclopedia. Please Write the Article First. Additionaly, "Lists" are subject to Wikipedia's other policies such as WP:NOTDIR and WP:SPAM. Equally, Wikipedia is not a guide nor a repository to any/every real-time operating system in existence. --Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]