Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Thu 17th Feb 2011 17:49 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless So the writing is on the wall. In a very bold move, Nokia's new CEO, Stephen Elop, has decided to fully ditch Nokia's migration plan for the past few years and have the company embrace his former employer's operating system, Windows Phone 7, instead. This noticeably implied getting rid of two competitors, Symbian and the upcoming MeeGo, which were both put on the road to slow death. This article aims at saying goodbye to an old citizen of the mobile space who's now heading to its grave: Symbian. (Warning: Rant ahead)
Thread beginning with comment 463041
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
benmhall
Member since:
2006-03-08

This was an excellent and thoughtful article that raised good points throughout. Well done and thank you for contributing it to OSNews.

Symbian can now take its place alongside many great but ultimately failed operating systems:

- AmigaOS
- PalmOS
- BeOS
- MacOS 9.x and earlier

Personally, I never met a Symbian phone I liked (I've owned a few for testing purposes) but missed them entirely in their heyday. It's a sad fact that the OS' time has passed, as will eventually be the case with all operating systems.

I haven't used Windows Phone 7 but remain skeptical. I truly wish that Nokia had purchased Palm and taken WebOS as their own. (Or even better: If HP had licensed it to Nokia.) Still, I think that HP will run better with it than Nokia would have, had they purchased Palm.

Having used Maemo, a platform that showed so much promise four years ago, I think it's a good thing that Nokia has gone with an OS outside of its complete control. Anything owned or created by them directly would run up against too much organizational inertia with the Symbian folks. Witness Maemo, Qt, Meego and probably many other aborted attempts at modernizing that I'm not aware of.

Still, it's sad.

Reply Score: 1

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

I am curious, what was the technical innovation of the MacOS classic? All the praise I've heard was about UI consistency, I don't think I've heard much about the underlying OS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

benmhall Member since:
2006-03-08

I am curious, what was the technical innovation of the MacOS classic? All the praise I've heard was about UI consistency, I don't think I've heard much about the underlying OS.


When the original MacOS came out it in 1984 it was very innovative. Many would argue that it offered the first usable GUI. Sure, it wasn't the first GUI, and the underlying OS wasn't great by 2011 standards, but it was nothing short of revolutionary in 1984.

The original MacOS introduced people to the modern GUI, had great UI consistency, and held its own quite well for decades until other preemptively multitasking and multi-user systems became commonplace.

The rest, of course, is modern history. Sure, the OS eventually needed to be replaced but on balance, it aged rather well, I'd say.

Reply Parent Score: 1