Talk:Operating system/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Market share changes; the alphabet doesn't

Although I can see why it is tempting to reorder the examples of OS's to suit our view (or the view of the market), the market and our cultural view changes over time. In this case another editor will want to swap the list around to suit and then another and another. To see examples of this behaviour we need only look at the article history. I set the list in alphabetical order some time ago (and at the time added a note hinting as to why). I strongly suggest that the article features lists that will be reordered (time and time again for various and often pointless reasons) to be ordered alphabetically and left that way. fg^t_c 21:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was the editor who recently changed the order to reflect market share. I did it because I saw another re-ordering get reverted and thought "oh, the ordering seems to be chosen at random, so I'll order it in a less arbitrary way." If you prefer to order it alphabetically, I have no specific objection, so please proceed. SocratesJedi | Talk 03:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No particular order matters which is actually the problem. Everyone has their own view of which way around they should be so the order gets shifted around for all kinds of reasons (I think typically it comes down to favouritism). The only order that has no connotations seems to me to be alphanumerical. Unless we are enslaved and indoctrinated by 12 fingered telepathic aliens, I think there is little chance the order will get out of date. I added a note a while back reading that the list was not exhaustive and was alphabetical in order to try to avoid this constant flux but the note was thought to be un-encyclopaedic. Alphabetical or alphanumerical lists are however very encyclopaedic so I really think that would be best. Thanks for your input. fg^t_c 03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I also agree it should go alphabeticaly. As you say it will never change. --JetBlast (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

me too; go the alphabet Steev (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Mini computers

I'm not much of an author so I will leave editing the article to a better writer with more details. This article misses not just an operating system but a class of computers. 'Mini computers' include IBM's AS400 which can run several operatng systems including OS400, and HPs HP3000 using the MPE operating system. (I was an HP3000 system operator.) Introduced sometime in the 1970's, HP stopped making the HP3000 in 2002 and stopped supporting it in 2004. I think that the MPE operating system is now owned by OpenMPE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.228.86 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"User interface" section

I guess that the statement

“ The user interface is not actually a part of the operating system ”

was a result of incorrectly narrow perception of the "operating system" concept by some user, not some point of view well-established in the industry. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)