Talk:OS-9

This discussion page is for the article OS-9 which is about an operating system produced by Microware in Iowa. The Macintosh OS (version 9) is another thing altogether.

Why the revert?
The article claims that OS-9 beat Apple by a number of years regarding the production of a multitasking OS with protected memory and a GUI. Apple had all of those things with its Lisa, a system that was in development for many years before it was released in 1983. Please provide proof that OS-9 beat Apple by providing dates in the article and citations.
 * BASIC09 (and so OS-9 development) were contracted for by Motorola during 6809 development. The first development version of the Lisa was based on the 6809 and perforce required chips for the development effort. Since Lisa was bloated, and repeatedly delayed, the time sequence suggested is prima facie plausible. The earliest version of OS-9 was available (for Gimix hardware, IIRC) in early 1982, unless my memory is lying to me. ww 06:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the best free browser for OS 9?
Note that this section does not belong here. It refers to the Macintosh operating system, not the OS-9 of this article. It really should be moved. ww 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved from Reference desk. &bull; Benc &bull; 07:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Intrigue 03:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the latest version of Mozilla provided for OS 9 is 1.2.1, which you can get at http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.2.1/mozilla-macos9-1.2.1-full.bin


 * WAMCOM creates MacOS classic binaries, apparently based on Mozilla 1.3.1, so that's more recent. That's at http://wamcom.org/latest-131/


 * --Kundor 04:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Try iCab too . adamsan 11:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And don't forget Opera, which still has Mac OS Classic versions. {&Alpha;&nu;&#940;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu;} 10:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! The Wikipedia mainpage crashes my iMac when I open it with IE5.3 for Mac... Intrigue 15:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The discussion page itself exemplifies the supposedly nonexistent confusion between Mac OS9 and OS-9. Nice bit of irony there.

OS-9 Easter Eggs
To Do: OS-9 Easter Egg section. (XCC compiler, SCF, and hidden messages in the kernel/modules.) --Allen Huffman 19:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

hard disk reference
I removed the following:

The major limitations (in both access time and maximum capacity) is that no mass storage other than floppy disk were supported by Radio Shack, nor did Radio Shack ever release a version of the CoCo with better hardware (that is, more hardware resources). Hard disks were available only from third party sources. Radio Shack continued to emphasize the games orientation for the machine until it was discontinued.

This statement is false. Tandy sold an MFM hard disk controller. I remember it was listed in the 1988 radio shack catalog. Oregonerik (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unjustified Notability Guideline. Old != Non-Notable
Please consider removing the 'does not meet notability guidelines' notice on this article. It has adequate references. Even if OS-9 has for the most part fallen by the wayside of OS history, the fact that it is no longer in heavy use does not mean one should ignore its history. Microware, as a player in the 1980s and 1990s RTOS market, and computing systems such as the Tandy Color Computer, the Sharp X68000, Philips' CD-I etc. were significant during their time for those not isolated to working in the IBM PC sphere. It was widely used in many industrial control systems (Allen-Bradley manuals for their OS-9 systems are still widely available on the internet as one example) and at CERN (I will research and add references if required). If the criterion for Wikipedia entries on operating systems is confined to mainstream PC 'notability', then one should also consider removing the articles for BeOS, VxWorks, PSOS, microRTX, u/COS, QNX, and any other OS of which most non-technical people have never heard. Russtopia (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:42. Notability means there are enough reliable sources so that a reasonably complete article can be written based on them. Arguing about neither WP:OLDAGE, WP:POPULARITY or that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS helps establish that. Right now there is only one actual citation in the article. If you can find more, please go ahead and do so. And please, start new topics on the bottom. Keφr (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)