Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Aug 2017 23:09 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes

Today, it hit me that iOS is already ten years old. I consider iOS a relatively new and fresh operating system, but can we really say that at ten years old? In order to figure that out, I quickly threw together a little graph to visualise the age of both current and deprecated operating systems to get a better look at the age of operating systems.

It counts operating system age in terms of years from initial public release (excluding beta or preview releases) to the last release (in case of deprecated operating systems) or until today (in case of operating systems still in active development). I've included mainly popular, successful, consumer-oriented operating systems, leaving out more server or embedded oriented operating systems (such as UNIX and QNX), which tend to have vastly different needs and development cycles.

As far as the nomenclature goes, Windows 9x includes everything from Windows 1.0 to Windows ME, and Mac OS covers System 1 through Mac OS 9.2.2. Windows CE is currently called Windows Embedded Compact, but its line also includes Windows Phone 7, Windows Mobile, and Windows PocketPC.

Red indicates the operating system is no longer being developed, whereas green means it's still under active development. The only question mark in this regard is Windows CE; its latest release is Embedded Compact 2013 in 2013, and while I think it's still in development, I'm not entirely sure.

This graph isn't a scientifically accurate, well-researched, quotable piece of information - it takes many shortcuts and brushes several questions aside for brevity's sake. For instance, looking at the last official release doesn't always make sense, such as with Windows Service Packs or Mac OS X point releases, and I haven't even been entirely consistent with these anyway.

On top of that, the graph doesn't take months or weeks into account, and just counts everything in terms of years. Linux shouldn't technically be included at all (since it's just a kernel), and you can conceivably argue that, for instance, Mac OS X is older than its initial release in the form of 10.0 since it's so heavily based on NEXTSTEP. Amiga OS is also a bit of a stretch, since its development pace is slow and has even died down completely on several occasions. You could maybe possibly argue that BeOS is still in active development in the form of Haiku, but I consider Haiku a reimplementation, and not a continuation.

In any event, I originally wasn't planning on doing anything with this, but I figured I might as well publish it here since it's an interesting overview.

Thread beginning with comment 647423
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
IOS and Android
by Windows Sucks on Wed 2nd Aug 2017 02:46 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Are Android (And more so iOS) even separate operating systems since they rely so much on Linux and Java in the case of Android and BSD and OSX in the case of iOS?

Reply Score: 3

RE: IOS and Android
by jal_ on Wed 2nd Aug 2017 07:52 in reply to "IOS and Android"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Are Android (And more so iOS) even separate operating systems since they rely so much on Linux and Java in the case of Android and BSD and OSX in the case of iOS?

Android is a forked Linux (and iOS a forked BSD), but I think both have changed enough to warrent status as a seperate OS. Java is just a software layer on top, and not integral part of the OS. (Note this is all simplified, no time for the details...)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: IOS and Android
by BluenoseJake on Thu 3rd Aug 2017 17:26 in reply to "RE: IOS and Android"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

iOS and OS X are not BSDs

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: IOS and Android
by Vanders on Wed 2nd Aug 2017 09:18 in reply to "IOS and Android"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's make a simple rule: if the ABI & API are incompatible, it's a different OS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: IOS and Android
by dpJudas on Wed 2nd Aug 2017 10:41 in reply to "RE: IOS and Android"
dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

Let's make a simple rule: if the ABI & API are incompatible, it's a different OS.

Problem is, this would either make all OS releases a different OS, or it would make Windows 95 and Windows NT the same, depending on how strict you dictate the backwards compatibility.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: IOS and Android
by CATs on Wed 2nd Aug 2017 11:19 in reply to "RE: IOS and Android"
CATs Member since:
2017-06-09

Let's make a simple rule: if it has it's own kernel, it's a different OS. If it uses same kernel as something else, it's NOT a different OS.

Edited 2017-08-02 11:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0