The 10 Greatest Operating System Upgrades Ever
On Thursday, Microsoft will officially launch Windows Vista--for business users, at least--and while I don't know what specific claims it'll make about the new product at its bash in New York, I'm pretty sure they'll boil down to the notion that Vista's a major upgrade and we all ought to get it.
Whether Vista is a big deal for you is a matter that only you can decide. (If you'd like some help, check out our review, upgrade guide, and FAQ.)
I'll write more about Vista--which I've been running, in various pre-release versions, for almost sixteen months--in a future post. But for now, a question which I might be the only person asking at the moment: What have been the most significant operating system upgrades of the whole PC era? The ones that were meaningful advances on their predecessors, highly-evolved expressions of major platforms, and/or particularly influential?
Herewith, my idiosyncratic, extremely subjective list of the top ten, in chronological order. (Note that rating upgrades isn't quite the same exercise as rating operating systems, period--for one thing, it sort of rules out 1.0 versions, although I include one anyhow.) I'm pretty sure this isn't exactly the same as your list...
1. Apple DOS 3.1 (1978): Back in 1978, a floppy drive was a pricey, leading-edge peripheral--think of it as the Blu-Ray burner of its day. A surprisingly high percentage of Apple II owners had them--most of us were still futzing around with storing programs and data on tape cassettes--and it was Apple DOS 3.1 that made it possible. Despite the version number, this was the first commercially-available disk operating system for the greatest PC of all time; the earlier iterations never reached the market. You might argue that it wasn't, then, an OS upgrade--but it was certainly a major upgrade to the capabilities of the Apple II, which had been on the market for less than a year.
3. Microsoft MS-DOS 2.0 (1983): Subdirectories! Hard-drive support! Backslashes to indicate file structures! This upgrade to Microsoft's operating system, which came along just as PC clones began to dominate the computer industry, introduced lots of stuff that, it's startling to recall, weren't part of DOS from the get-go.
5. Microsoft Windows For Workgroups 3.11 (1992): It's not always the upgrades with fancy version numbers and big marketing budgets that mean the most. WfW 3.11 was the most highly-evolved version of Windows 3.x (and yes, I may be making a mistake by not including Windows 3.0 on this list, since it was the first Windows that was actually worth using). 3.11 also made networking a fundamental part of the Windows platform. Perhaps the highest compliment I can pay it: When Windows 95 came along, there were things about WfW, including its File Manager, that lots of us preferred to Win95's way of doing things.
6. Linux 0.99 (1993): In 1991, Linus Torvalds began development of a UNIX-like operating system. That was a big deal. But it was at least as big a deal when, a couple of years later, he decided to release it under the GNU Public License. That jump-started the worldwide developer community that turned Linux into...well, Linux.
 |
 |
 |
10. LindowsOS 1.0 (2001): This one might be controversial for reasons that go beyond the fact that a new Linux distribution isn't exactly an OS upgrade--Lindows (renamed Linspire after a nasty trademark tussle with Microsoft) has never been beloved in the Linux community, and the company has never lived up to founder Michael Robertson's dreams of grandeur (and, at first, his claims of real Windows compatibility). But what the heck: I think Robertson deserves credit for setting out to build a Linux for normal people, not geeks. And even though others such as Xandros and Ubuntu have gone further in de-nerding the nerdiest of operating systems, I'm ending this list with the first version of Lind--er, Linspire. It certainly represented an upgrade to Linux's mass appeal.
Like I said, I can't imagine that anyone reading this will agree with all ten of my picks...and I suspect that some folks will be appalled by my omissions. Feel free to chime in with your own nominations. (Anyone out there want to make the case for Vista as a landmark?)
PC World's Marketplace
PC World's Free Whitepapers
tech news tech blogs community & forums laptop prices software reviews downloads
Linspire Still Wins for the non-Geek
I was happy to see LindowsOS (Linspire) mentioned here, and for the reason you gave. I was, however, surprised to see you say Xandros and Ubuntu are less geeky! I've sued all three, and Linspire (LindowsOS) is hands down the easiest to use desktop Linux. With things like CNR (click n run), the use of proprietary codecs and drivers, they have the best hardware and multimedia support. It's the one Linux OS you can do Java, Flash, Windows Media, QuickTime, Real, DVD, MP3, etc., all legally and without fiddeling about. They provide one-click Windows compatibility with Codeweaver's CrossoverOffice, Win4Lin and Transgamming. They also seem to be the only company that understands how important OEM's are, with over 750 Linspire system builders selling it pre-installed, including HP.
Kudos to Michael Robertson for not only his vision then, but his continued fight in a tough war.
Roger
Oh, and it should also be mentioned, Linspire is now basically free with Freespire and CNR is also now a free service. Now it's not only the easiest to use, it's free. =)
A moore significant upgrade for a linux distro would be the first really usable and popular live cd, Knoppix.
I'm just going to put it out there, regardless of how much scrutiny it will surely endure:
Vista will easily become 11th on that list. Anyone who has been keeping up with the improvements upon its predecessor can see why five years from now we will be looking back to tody wondering how we didn't see it comming.
Ah...I always wanted to travel back to 1991... ;)
Make a case for Vista? Easy. Micro$oft will drop support for XP and force Vista upon us. Other than this, I have neither seen (in using Vista Beta2) nor heard nor read anything that would make Vista Ultra worth more than 49 cents.
This article should be named "The 10 Greatest Ground-Breaking OS's Ever" or "Most Popular." Majority of the picks don't even qualify as upgrades. Lindows 1.0 ? Hello? 1.0? First version?? Windows 95, containing a kernel layer that created the need for a compatibility mode. The first MS OS that didn't need AUTOEXEC and CONFIG entries to load drivers. Now 98SE (or 98) is an upgrade. It was only one of the most widely installed OSs ever and still popular to this day. OSX an upgrade from Mac OS9? Can you get an OS9 app/driver to run on OSX without using "Classic Environment" (aka a VM running OS9). Not a chance. OSX's kernel is Unix inspired -- brand-newl. That's not an upgrade. IIf OS9 were an Automatic Transmission, you just put in a Manual Trans. Now my car looks the same (shinier from the car wash), but runs totally different. If Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is an upgrade, then so is XP Pro. WfW 3.11 is to XP Pro as Win 3.1 is to XP Home. Guess we pay for upgrades. Worst List Ever!
I am going to get bashed but how about GeoWorks? I know it was just another GUI clone but it worked well, required far less horsepower than Win 3 and had some nice included apps. I think I still have a diskette set (only 7 I think vesus 13 plus fro Win 3)
grmells beat me to GeoWorks, but I'm going to say GEOS for the Commodore 64 anyway. It brought a full GUI to an 8-bit machine and did it quite well, giving the C64 a much needed push in the face of the 16-bit computers. It even used virtual memory from floppy-disk!
XP was the most significant upgrade. It starts FASTER than it's predecessors, crashes LESS than they do, and runs programs and manages memory better. Is it perfect? FAR from it, but it is SIGNIFICANTLY better than it's predecessors. ESPECIALLY 2000. PLEASE. 2000 was HORRIBLE with plug n play, doesn't network well in anything but domain situations, and is slow and cumbersome. Vista, unfortunately, will be a DOWNGRADE
I heartily agree with GhostfaceKillah's first sentence -- the title of the article adds an entirely unnecessary element to the article, namely, defining what an "upgrade" is. That being said, I think the list is pretty good, although I would have put MS-DOS 2.0 first. It's the OS that made PCs respectable in the office, and *really* launched the PC revolution. Next would be one of the Mac OSes so MSFT would have something to crib from), then WfW 3.11, which made GUIs usable by the corporate world. After that, probably Win2000.
Hey!
I just wanted to add another vote for Geoworks. I used it and loved it.
JimG
The greatest OS I ever used was OS2, with the GUI outside the kernel and with that IMHO leap years beyond any operating system of its time. I ran this OS for six months straight without a single system wide crash, and when it finally did it was my own fault. It's best upgrade was version 3.0, i.e. OS2 Warp. I was really surprised that it never surfaced in your opinion here. Following that, the OS I have been most at ease with has been XP Pro. It was as close as any I have seen to matching the stability I found in OS2. I'll wait on Vista till all you guys who are going to try it out on your hardware right away tell me what you find. I'm sure there will be unpleasant surprises initially, as there always have been in the past.
I would also nominate Geoworks from a company called Berkley Software (God, I hope I got that right). I sold a ton as an alternative to Windows 286 and 3.0. It would run on an XT (no small feat when 386's abounded), was written in assembly, was a simple GUI, and beat Microsoft every way possible. I loved the fact that they even gave a full copy to everyone at COMDEX.
Even my dad, who dislikes computers and phutzing around with upgrades, used it until just a few years ago for his real estate office. He still doesn't understand why he can't use it on his new HP (besides trying to find a 5 1/4 floppy drive). Alas, one more casualty of Microsoft's deep war chest.
I'll probably move to Vista, just like a bunch of other disaffected users, just because of the huge base of applications that will be available. I am having problems understanding how a $399 price tag for the top version is justified since that almost costs more than a budget PC.
Does anyone remember that "OS" that Tandy had with their TRS80 systems? It was sort of a GUI. Kind of wonder what it would have been like if it had been developed. It was before Win V1, right?
I agree with pretty much all of your choices, I think you have a pretty compressive list (though I would have listed Win 95 a little bit higher).
The only part of your blog I disagree with is your statement that OS X is "the best desktop operating systems of the modern era" and that everyone rips off OS X.
I agree that OS X was an amazing upgrade from OS 9 which brought Apple up to par (and beyond in some aspects) with Windows. But OS X is not such a great operating system that it is the best of the 21st century. I am sorry, as pretty and nice as it is, Windows XP and 2000 are superior because they are more efficient. E.g., the task manager is windows is much more useful than the very attractive dock. Also, how can the best OS of the 21st century lack support for the majority of hardware/software natively (no wine or parallels please)?
Also, Vista did not rip off OS X, lets get it right. Many of the amazing "features" of OS X were borrowed (Konfabulator anyone?
This is more of a response to DvTHex and all those that think like that.
The only reason that Vista should be #11 or the next leader in OSs is because it is actually better than its predesessor and competition.
Not because "well everyone else is going to use it, I may as well. Companies are going to make everything new for it anyway."
It's no wonder that MS can make, as far as my own testing with Vista goes, the most annoying OS ever created and people will buy it like it's the cure for AIDS/Cancer/World Famine/War.
I would assume that people that read PC World are a little more compter savvy than my Grandma. So as educated PC users we have a duty to put an end to this cycle of using crappy software simply because it's "the way."
Plus there are many other non-MS alternatives. If we all use some other OS then more companies would write software for it as well.
Taking up 1 gig of memory if you want to do much more than browse the web, just shows us that maybe AOL wasn't really the king of memory hogs, controllers and intruders we thought they were after all. Before I give an OS a gig of memory while I work, I'll change OS's altogether. There is no limit to the dirty deeds that can go on in all of that.
I just made the switch from Windows XP to Freespire & couldn't be happier. I did also try other Linux apps like Mandriva, Ubuntu & Fedora Core 6. I don't do any major gaming & have never liked XP. And I just plain refuse to pay the price for Vista.