Talk:Network operating system

Self-contradiction is bad

This article is self-contradictory. In the second paragraph, it disclaims the idea that Windows XP is a "network operating system", then soon thereafter goes on to assert that Windows NT and 2000 are. Since the three systems have basically the same architecture, this is inconsistent.

As far as I can tell, the term "network operating system" was usually used several years ago to describe Novell Netware, and specifically the idea of using a different OS on the server and exerting a greater portion of control over the clients (usually running MS-DOS). That is to say, it was basically used as a marketing term, not a real-world distinction.

Naturally, a use that includes Windows 2000, Red Hat Linux, and Solaris would be a simpler meaning: any operating system with networking capability built in, perhaps? Or any that can run LAN services? --FOo 10:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reaction to the above: You overlooked this part of the definition: An NOS is an OS that has been specifically written to keep networks running at optimal performance.

XP wasn't dedicated to this goal. The primary goal was making a better interface...

The original poster is correct. The term NOS was originally used to describe NetWare, an operating system designed for a file server, as opposed to a general purpose operating system. The term was then also applied to software designed to add file server capabilities to DOS, such as LANtastic. Windows for Workgroups was also considered a NOS, because it was considered a special extended version of Windows and a competitor to existing NOS. The use of the term began to fade with when file server capabilities became a standard part of Windows and other general purpose operating systems. One could argue that the server versions of Windows and Linux would qualify as NOS, but I don't see the term applied there. Perhaps that is because the network capabilities exist in the general version of the OS, and are merely enhanced or optimized in the server versions -- Seitz 05:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Baloney again!

I was running a Network Operating System before Netware every existed! The First Network Operating System! --CyberSongs 20:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but incorrect

Actually, the NOS NOS™ Network Operating Systems™ precedes any of these claims.

Before Unix or Aix there was the Master Control Program [MCP], the first Network Operating System, and the one upon which all of the afterruners were based, including Unix.

Principally the product, once again, of J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, their colleques and employees, both Bell and IBM used their designs as the basis for their attempts at Network Operating Sytems, as they had with Cobol and other compiler languages.

The MCP, moreover, was a NCOS full Network Compiler Operating System™

The MCP was based in Espol and Algol, the preceptive languages for both Cobol and C.

The term Network Operating System was coined by me under my company NSC N S C ™Network Software Company ™

As were many other terms often accredited to latter users of the such.

Regardless of wikipedia's treatises, Truth Will Out!

Terry James

CyberSongs

The term "Network Operating System" is meaningless in todays context. It meant someting in the 80's when you got DOS and then bought networking software to transfer data between computers.

Today, the networking functionality is built into the operating system such as Windowx XP or LINUX. I am not aware of anyone who has bought Windows and then went and bought a "Network Operating System".

Theo Tsourdalakis Engineer

article needs rewriting: NOS is a term with several connotations

When I first read this article, I found myself arguing with it's content even before I reached the end. The problem is that the term of Network Operating System (NOS) has been redefined several times throughout the history of operating systems with network access. In the most simplified interpretation, NOS can connote any operating system that has capability to connect over a network with another computer. The myriad extrapolations from this point extend to very different understandings of what an NOS entails. I refer by example to two pages with divergent explanations of NOS: IT Architect - Network Operating Systems and Answers.com NOS definition

I think the article should present a complete picture of the term NOS and its various interpretations; in its current state, the article presents a very narrow view of the subject matter and only serves to misinform.

I suggest that this "redefined several times throughout the history of operating systems with network access" suggests strongly that the term is chiefly a marketing buzzword and not a technical distinction at all.

What, if anything, would you suggest is the difference between a "network operating system" and any other operating system with support for networked applications and facilities? --FOo 07:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)