OS-tan Theory Revival

Started by Chocofreak13, January 02, 2012, 06:39:37 am

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Go Down

Chocofreak13

(take 2)
another year, another chance for this! welcome back to the OS-tan theory thread! (you all ready for the wall of text to come? >:3)
as before, the purpose of this thread is to discuss theories surrounding OS-tan, including the OS-tan world, the Evolution of Os-tan and other -tans, and the Familial Relationships of OS-tan. (NOTE: i HIGHLY reccomend you take breaks while reading this. it's too long to be read in one sitting.)

to keep us current, i will be reposting the information. Stand by for the wave.................

Chocofreak13

os-tan family trees
Quote from: choco
everytime we talk about older OSes, they always relate to RL releases of OSes. basically, 1 came first then 2 (which was a better version of 1) and even though 98 and SE are widely considered twins, 98 came first and SE about a year later.

this makes about as much sense as me going to church.

so i decided to take an anime approach: (DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT ARTISTIC, JUST -slightly- INFORMATIVE.)
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i98/Chocofreak13/ostanlineage10-1.jpg

1. DOS, the black cat, guardian of the windows family.
2. Windows 1.0, the oldest known windows ancestor. Helped create the windows family.*
3. Windows 2.0, daughter of 1.0, keeper of the family record, current caretaker of 1.0.*
4. Windows 3.1, daughter of 2.0, link from main family to elder generations, current keeper of DOS. **
5. Yamada, daughter of 3.1 windows 98 first generation, current wherabouts unknown.(*)
  5.a. Windows 98, daughter of Yamada, twin sister of SE
  5.b. Windows 98 SE, daughter of Yamada, twin sister of 98
6. Windows 95, daughter of 3.1, family warrior.
  6.a. Windows ME, possible daughter of 95, ward of 2000, 1 of 3 OSTAN mascot
7. NT, daughter of 3.1, caretaker of Inu-T.
  7.a. Windows 2000, daughter of NT, guardian/caretaker of ME 1 of 3 OSTAN mascot
    7.a.a. Pizza, adopted daughter of 2000, professional public nusiance
    7.a.b. Windows Server 2000, possible daughter of 2000, Server representative
  7.b. Inu-T, daughter of NT, ward of NT
  7.c Windows XP (Saseko and Homeko), daughters of NT, twin sisters, 1 of 3 OSTAN mascot
  7.d. Windows Server 2003 (SABA), daughter of NT, current server mascot, server represntative
8. Unknown (**)
  8.a Windows Longhorn Server (SABA LONGHORN), unknown origin, server representative
  8.b Windows Vista (Vistan), Unknown origin, multiple forms
9. Norton Anti-virus, Family Doctor, pervert

*This OS, while a part of the Windows Family, does not reside within the main branch of the Windows Family.
(*)This OS is currently missing.
**Due to a time paradox at the end of the cold war, 3.1 remains younger than her children.
(**) The entire Vista branch's lineage, while inexplicibly tied to the Windows Family, cannot be traced back. Origins thus remain unknown.
aurora, i agree with most of your points. i will work them into a version 2 chart. (thanx for the compliment btw, but they're just doodles. i'm also getting a good art program and a tablet soon hopefully, so perhaps i will improve. :3 )

as for yamada tan, though, i've read around, she IS 98, but was criticized for being too plain. i still count her (she's just forgotten, like many non-mainstream tans), and besides, i've always pictured her (from an anime standpoint, not an os standpoint) as 98 and SE's mother, she looks the part, and seems to be the only OS who can actually hold down a job. but since she's not mentioned much, or pictured with any OSes, i peg her as currently "missing".

thanx for the info though. it's going into my next report.
btw, next year i hope to be part of an online animation class, if i make the cut please expect lots of OS-tan related flash clips! xD

also, next time, could you include a link to some pics of these tans? i'll go to wiki for now, but...

oh, and a suggestion for future site updates: a gallery search feature would be nice. :3
thanx both, got em. going through the wiki anyway to see if there are any i missed.

also looking on actual os releases on wiki, why don't we use their codenames more often? janus and chicago and asteroid sound nice, i think. :3 not that there's anything bad about the names now, i just think janus sounds pretty. :3
hmm, damn, i was picturing (anime standpoint) a big sis that 3.1 remembers fondly, but died when she was very small....

at any rate, i'm gonna split, okie? i'm getting antsy (pc and ps2 running upstairs) and i'm already freaking out that itunes had dissapeared. 0_0;
aurora, yours makes mine fail!!! ;_;
at any rate:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i98/Chocofreak13/windowsfamilytree2o.jpg

oh also i was sure there was a comic with saba longhorn it it!!! but i can't find it.....
so i'll give you this instead. ♥
http://iiichan.net/stuff/homeo/index.php?file=37

pizza is sou kawaii, rite?
ooooo do the mac tree in a mafia style!! xD there's a photo in the gallery like that, i love it! xD

at any rate, version 3 is done, just need to colour and upload.
btw, i got my tablet in the mail yesterday, perhaps we'll be seeing prettyful things coming from me now!! =D
i like it, never seen the early MACs before! (earliest i saw was Lisa and OS2.)

i should try to make an OS-kun tree, and upload the ver. 3 windows tree. O__O;

btw, got tablet and CG program! <D

aurora-san, you left out Lisa, os-2 (the blonde one) and OS9's name! (sonata)
AUGH, i'm gonna stick with windows on second thought, mac be too confusing.


except Kyourou-kyun. sou kawaii, Kyourou and Emuii 4eva!!!


lulz chatspeak xD
come to think of it, openVMS is the mother of NT-tan, who is the mother of half of the win-tans, and step-mother to the rest, which makes openVMS grandma to windows, which means we should put her in the tree too.....who was openVMS related to? can't find her in the wiki.
Quote from: aurora
VMS-tan's mother is RSX-11-tan, whose adoptive mother is DOS-11-tan, though RSX-11-tan's true ancestry is unknown. They're listed in the wiki.

VMS-tan's younger sister is VAXELN-tan. RT-11-tan and RSTS-tan are step-relatives to them, those two being stepsisters to VMS's and VAXELN's mother.

TOPS-10-tan and TOPS-20-tan were also in the same faction as them (The DEC), and are some sort of step-relatives, but I don't know what their relation is exactly.


@bella: now i want a picture of mac os 8 shaking her head in shame at some retarded/mutated os 7 clones. xD

i think we should try our hand at a linux family tree. sure, if we overthink it it'll end up bigger than the TREE O' LIFE, but since bella said that pretty much everyone in the linux family decended from those three heirs, it might not be too complex. especially if we take it step-by-step. :3

btw, when all is said and done, and i upload all the pics i've gathered, i'll post the family tree pics i've found. :3

i'd consider SAGE 7090's sister, and have CTSS be their half-sister.

and this is good that we've revived this thread; i was preparing to port it over to a new thread (i still might, since there's about a page and a half of topicless-style babbling).

I've always wondered what happened to get 1.0 and 2.0 exiled. ik people have said that it was because they couldn't keep up during the OS wars, but with that mentality every OS prior to the newest would be exiled. :\ (for that matter, why wasn't 3.1 exiled at the time too?)

i wonder how the mac's views would fall in that timeframe. 7.5 was leading the family by that point, right? wonder how the rest of the family felt, and what 8 and Sonata would have to say. :\




Quote from: aurora
That's a pretty good chart. I like your artwork and I'm glad you remembered Windows 1.0-tan and 2.0-tan! :D

However...

2.0-tan is the oldest sister to 3.1-tan, 3.2-tan, 95-tan, the 95 OSR 2-tans, the 98-tans and possibly ME-tan. (the DOS-based branch of Windows-tans are all daughters to Windows 1.0-tan) I say possibly related to ME-tan because IIRC, Windows ME is largely DOS-based but also has some NT-based elements.

NT-tan and her descendants are not related by blood to the DOS-based Windows-tans (NT is based off of Digital Equipment Corporation's VMS operating system) and are actually stepsisters to them but none of the main Windows-tans know that. You are correct that NT-tan is the mother to Inu-T, 2K-tan, XP-tan, and Saba-tan. Vistan and Windows 7-tan are also NT-tan's daughters.

98-tan and 98SE-tan are sisters to the DOS-based Windows branch. Yamada isn't an OS-tan, she's just an OS-tan wannabe like WE-tan and Pizza-ko.

There is also a Windows 3.2-tan who is 3.1-tan's twin sister but because of 3.2-tan's distant upbringing (and living as a wanderer for her whole life), most of the other Windows-tans are unaware of her existence.

And then there are 95 OSR 2.1-tan and 95 OSR 2.5-tan but they don't reside with the rest of the Windows Family. They live as wanderers.
Another of Windows 3.x's codenames is... SPARTA!!

The Classic Mac OS also has some awesome codenames though the only one that most people know are Mac OS 9's first codename of "Sonata" and Macintosh System 7's first codenames of "Blue" and "Big Bang".
Windows 3.0-tan is the same character as 3.1-tan, just when she was very young.
3.1-tan does have a very sappy backstory in the OS-tan Annex Project:

She was born during the era of MS-IBM cooperation and she lived with Windows 1.0-tan, 2.0-tan, MS-DOS-tan, PC-DOS-tan, OS/2-tan and possibly Xenix-tan (she was said to have retired around the time 3.0-tan was born).

This was for a very short time, as later in 1990, the MS-IBM Family broke up. And then during the OS Wars, Windows 1.0-tan and 2.0-tan were exiled and 3.1-tan is not allowed to speak of them (if she can remember them at all)

Here's my try at a Windows family tree. It's a collage but I like how you went that extra mile and drew everything in yours!

(EDIT: OOPS! I forgot to add in CE-tan! >__< )

http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/albums/userpics/10307/windowshistorychart-rev1.png
Quote from: hicamajig
Its missing server 2008, though has anyone even created a server 08 tan?

Oops! I forgot her too! >__<

There is a Server 2008-tan. She's a mackerel girl like 2003 Server-tan but 2008 Server-tan has curly blonde hair, a tiara and her mackerel body is gold-colored.
Quote from: Chocofreak13
i came up with the idea last week, icerain. nice to meet you btw, haven't seen you before. :]

but aurora, i like yours better, on some points. i might borrow some of your format for version 3. :3

Thanks! I'm glad you like my version too but mine's not as original as yours -_-

I still need to revise my version of the Windows family tree (add in CE-tan and Server 2008-tan) and I'm also working on the Mac-tan family tree (I'm warning you all now, it's going to be weird!).
Here's the first revision of the Mac-tan family tree!

http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/albums/userpics/10307/machistorychart_rev1.jpg
And I thought that System 3.4-tan and 5-tan would be enough to make anyone go "WTF?!"

Since I added in the codenames for the Mac OSX-tan, I was wondering if I should also add in some of the codenames for the Classic Mac OSes too.
Lisa-tan and Apple II-tan (that's the other blonde girl older than the Mac-tans) are not directly related to either branch of the Macintosh line but if I decide to extend the family tree to include all the Apple-tans I'll include them in. Though I certainly should add in Lisa-tan since the Mac OS was heavily influenced by the Lisa OS.

I'll add in the Classic Mac codenames too in the next revision.
You're right but are getting some things mixed up here.

The Lisa is hardware but there is also the Lisa OS (Lisa-tan represents both). And once again you've gotten Apple II-tan (the blonde girl with braided pigtails) confused with another. Apple II-tan is a catch-all character representing the Apple II series hardware and its OSes. Mac System 2-tan is one of the Mac OS-tans, of course!

The thing is a lot of the vintage OS-tans mainly represent the hardware but assumed to also represent its OSes or version of BASIC it runs. These vintage-tans tend to blur the line between OS-tans and hardware-tans!
Quote from: iamnothere900
About early Macintosh version numbers...

In the beginning there were three separate pieces of software in a Mac: the Finder, System Suitcase (sometimes called just System), and ROM. The ROM stored code in a chip so it could be kept out of RAM, which was very expensive. The Finder was like Windows Explorer: it was the program that you used to launch other programs. The System Suitcase was everything else. The ROM chips were part of the motherboard and rarely upgraded. That leaves the Finder and System Suitcase.

Thanks for clearing all of that that up! ;019 I didn't know how to explain all of that myself!

Quote

At first each had their own version number, but that got confusing very fast. At some point certain Finder + System Suitcase combinations where discussed as "System Software x.y" were x and y had nothing to do with the System Suitcase or Finder version number. System Software 5.1 had System Suitcase 4.3, Finder 6.0 and MultiFinder 1.0 !

I'm still baffled by those strange version numbers (who isn't?!), especially System 3.4 which doesn't even have a System Software version number!

Quote

To fix this, System Software 6 brought all the version numbers together. Also called just "System 6", it was the best yet and lasted much longer than anything previous.

System 6 brought the version numbers ALMOST completely together but it was close enough and a lot less confusing. :)

Quote

System 7 was a complete rewrite, and had many new features. Apple agreed to let other computer makers sell their computers (clones) with "System 7" for a fee.

That probably explains why many apps work with System 6 (and older) but not System 7! I thought that System 7 was good (except for System 7.5) though its advancements did have a few major trade-offs.

Quote

Mac OS 7.6 was more trademarkable than System and allowed Apple to shutdown illegal cloners more effectively. Mac OS 8 was not part of the contract with clone makers; 8.0 was the end of legal Macintosh clones.

That's right! But IIRC, most of those clones at the time were legal. Apple was losing a lot of money to the clones (legal or otherwise) and wanted to shut them all down.

Quote

Hey, are there any OS-tans for A/UX ?

Yes there is! Here's her article at the OSC Wiki:
Yeah, drawing a Linux family tree or even a Unix family tree would be way too difficult and huge! x__x
Not necessarily. Linux IS based off of Unix and made to operate just like Unix would but Linux is not derived from its code at all.

However, Linux-tan is sort of like the daughter Unix-sama wished she had! Unix-sama's actual daughters are mostly bratty, fight against each other and she can barely trust most of them at all due to all the infighting since the Unix Wars.
There aren't any human male Linux characters. The only male Linux character is that creepy penguin with three packages if you know what I mean. o_o

*shudder*


Chocofreak13

Quote from: smokey
Well, as far as i know... Vista (wich was then called longhorn) was developed to replace the XP line, so basically they should be in that line... How Longhorn relates to Vista, i don't know, because Longhorn was the codename for Vista and basically all i ever saw from Longhorn were betas...
Well, that's mac for ya...weird... ^_^
Wow, different, but not much more complicated than the windows tree... ^_^
Sure, why not...Makes it more complete... and indeed MacOS 3.4 is indeed a bit strange... ^_^
But aren't Lisa and Mac System II hardware?
Ah, so the older the system, the more confusing it gets... ^_^
Wow, Linux is a family, but they're all bastard childs of Unixes...

Quote from: Nej
Digital family life has nevar been this complex.
Quote from: CaptBrenden
You know guys.. Longhorn is sever 2008.. much like a couple other tans there is more then one version of her. Ive seen a few pictures (tho i dont remember where) of a Saba with horns, and that was suppose to be server 2008

Well, not really, actually - it's true Saba 2008 has horns, but the original longhorn-tan is someone different - since Vista was in prototype status and known to the public for quite a time and under this time known as longhorn, there was a separate -tan made during that period. Longhorn thus represents the prototype releases before it was named Vista. Server 2008 is a separate, finished product.
And the Linux family tree...

hm.
Is there a possibility to do something like different -tans for different kernels? or is that unnecessary?
So...the Linuces are UNIX-sama's adoptive children.

Good riddance?
And what was Odyssey now again...something to do with 2k as well, if I remember things right.

Quote from: iamnothere900
About early Macintosh version numbers...

In the beginning there were three separate pieces of software in a Mac: the Finder, System Suitcase (sometimes called just System), and ROM. The ROM stored code in a chip so it could be kept out of RAM, which was very expensive. The Finder was like Windows Explorer: it was the program that you used to launch other programs. The System Suitcase was everything else. The ROM chips were part of the motherboard and rarely upgraded. That leaves the Finder and System Suitcase.

At first each had their own version number, but that got confusing very fast. At some point certain Finder + System Suitcase combinations where discussed as "System Software x.y" were x and y had nothing to do with the System Suitcase or Finder version number. System Software 5.1 had System Suitcase 4.3, Finder 6.0 and MultiFinder 1.0 !

To fix this, System Software 6 brought all the version numbers together. Also called just "System 6", it was the best yet and lasted much longer than anything previous.

System 7 was a complete rewrite, and had many new features. Apple agreed to let other computer makers sell their computers (clones) with "System 7" for a fee.

Mac OS 7.6 was more trademarkable than System and allowed Apple to shutdown illegal cloners more effectively. Mac OS 8 was not part of the contract with clone makers; 8.0 was the end of legal Macintosh clones.

Apple continued making large and small updates to Mac OS until 9.2, when they dropped the old line completely for Mac OS X.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_history

Hey, are there any OS-tans for A/UX ?

Quote from: OS Freak
Awesome. Never saw a complete three of Windows. It's kinda missing CE, Server 2008, Home Server, OS2 Warp as well as minor variations to be mentioned like XP 64 bit, Tablet PC, Fundamentals for Legacy PC's and Neptune which is real just not released to the public, only the workers.
Wonder why microsoft didn't just call 98SE windows 99 and 95 OSR2.5 as windows 96. Yeah I know those name exist already. 96 is a beta released update for 95 supposedly and is called windows Nashville and 97 tan is the prebeta of 98 called Memphis. 99 is the beta of 2000 called NT 5.0.  ;018 wt... if so what is Neptune then? Windows 2001? based on XP released XP is NT 5.1 or Windows 2001. Confusive but makes sense. Just intertwined which derails the actual sense into not making sense. This thing needs to be studied or debated. ;138
Yes Ive heard ME being has she is carries a great piece of history over her. She was the first tan ever created. To tell you the truth I like ME. I have it in virtual pc 2007 and she hardly ever crashes. Randomly on random days at random times she crashes the virtual machine service. Says: Vmsrvc - the application vmsrvc.exe has caused a problem in vmsrvc. The application will now close. It closes and nothing happens. So I think I have a pretty stable and loved ME version.

As an OS collector I also have Neptune and it's pretty much like an advanced 2K but a very stable one. Sometimes drivers mess her up. I've gotten that problem were at the end I manage to revive her and bring her to life. "Neptune, I'm so glad to see you safe, welcome back girl - Ohh master thank you for your loyalty and kindness" When she restarts you wish she'd say that. What she says is a box with System Failure : This machine has recovered from a fatal internal error. Would you like to provide comments about this problem so it can be fixed?

Obviously the Neptune team does not exist so you cannot report anything since to microsoft Neptune does not exist as it was abandoned/scrapped. The windows update service also fails on her and many programs requiring 2K SP 1, 2, 3, 4, RU will not install. Since she's an NTC or no service pack modified 2K. Ever tried SP4 on her? I did it says Neptune cannot be upgraded becaus the SP4 of 2K is for 2k SP3. lol Makes sense. Either way Neptune is a 2K engine so it's kinda messed also.

Quote from: red
Neptune was going to be a home version of 2000, but it was pulled by Bill in favour of ME. I've played with the beta and it seems pretty solid, although a tad unstable when it has the latest DirectX...
Yeah, Neptune was a bitch to get running properly. She comes as standard with a crippled version of IE 5.5, which can't do anything. You update to IE 6 SP1 and it will crash a fair amound of times. It also comes with DirectX 7, so you try to update it to DirectX 9.0c and it hates you. I managed to get it work by copying some files from my ME partition.

Long story short: she's stable, but only as long as you're careful and have a copy of ME/2k to hand in case you need some files.

A Linux family tree is possible, but can get complicated because it has many more branches.

GNU/Linux is of course the mother or ancestor of all Linuces, but her oldest daughters have many descendants themselves. Most distros are derived from either: Red Hat, Debian, and Slackware; all of which are three of the oldest distros. Though there are some notable exceptions such as Yggdrasil being the oldest distro (or Linux's first daughter) but doesn't have any descendants of its own.

Both the Windows and Mac Family trees can get even more convoluted if you include the NT line's and the OSX line's biological ancestors into the mix, and MS-DOS's other biological relatives. @_@

Yeah... The relations between the Linuces gets awfully confusing quickly, but most of them are derived from three main distros.

As for the Mac clones, It's time for the Don't Explain the Joke trope!:

What is now Mac OS 8 was originally called Mac OS 7.7, but was renamed to exploit the loophole of the clones being licensed to run Mac OS 7.x in order to force the clones out of the market, since the clones were eating away at the Mac's market share.

Is this a possible conjecture: the Mac Clones?

I thought Mac OS8-tan would have killed them off, but apparently not since there are still hobbyists that use them. So would Mac OS8 just forced them to retire by fighting them into submission, when they weren't willing just because of some loophole...

Moved from the wiki thread:

Quote from: Bella

Relevant to this thread? (Now that I've found the right one) >>



This was drawn in mid-July, so, it's REALLY out of date. For instance:

-It's been established that SAGE-tan = AN/FSQ-7 computer and whatever software it ran
-Likewise, CTSS-tan represents the OS and the modified IBM 7094 hardware on which it ran
-PDP 1-tan is only the "mother"/genetic ancestor of the 18-bit PDP lineup (PDP-4, -7, -9 and -15) the other PDP-tans descended from LINC, PDP-8, -6, and -11
-I'm not sure what, if any, influence CP/CMS had on later generations of IBM-tans


Quote from: Aurora Borealis

Excellent! So true that Unix and Linux have too many descendants to count, and separate trees would be needed for them. DOS-11 stole RSX-tan from her biological mother?! Now I'm really curious about that! Please elaborate!

A few more I'd add if you plan on making an updated version:

-Altair influenced IMSAI 8080, though they're rivals.
-IMSAI 8080 was also the mentor to DR-DOS (CP/M)
-I don't see any mention of the Data Generals, but the Nova influenced Apple I.
-BESYS's life was sacrificed for Multics' creation, and UMES's life was sacrificed for MTS' creation.
-Apple III and Lisa influenced the Classic Mac OS.
-A/UX is a stepsister to the Classic Macs, and a presumably a cousin to the OSXs, highly influenced by the former.
-NeXTSTEP and Rhapsody are sisters.




Finally, something to discuss here again!

A/UX dates back to 1988 actually, versions 1 and 2 look just like (and can emulate) System 6, version 3 looks just like and can emulate System 7. Of her stepsisters, they're the two she has the most in common with.

She is a step-sister to all the Classic-tans and isn't related to them by blood, but shares cultural and intellectual ties with them (like how the older OSXs do too), and is distantly related to the OSXs. They're Unix-based but that's about it in terms of blood ties. She considers the Macs (Classic and OSX) plus Darwin OS, NeXTSTEP and the early Apples her main family, but will also show that she doesn't want to be a traitor to the Unices either.

Newton doesn't have blood ties to any of the Apple-tans, or really anybody, AFAIK. She is most often seen with A/UX-tan, and maybe also System 7-tan, and may have influenced iPhone-tan in some form, and is least seen as a spiritual predecessor.

I haven't gotten to writing these stories, though I'd really like to, but in their early years, A/UX-tan was also a mentor figure to System 6-tan (who after having her life saved, needed help adjusting to a new life). It also helps that A/UX-tan wasn't scared of her. :)

And while A/UX-tan was also a close friend to System 7-tan, A/UX wasn't able to help her in her time of need due to exile, and still feels really bad about that.  :(

A bit convoluted, but I do agree with the genetic engineering to some extent- mainly the reason why the OSXs except Rhapsody, DarwinOS, and Mac-tan/OSX-tan/OSX Public Beta... --whoever she is!!-- are catgirls.

Genetic engineering could also explain some of the height differences too. :P

And I could see how A/UX may have been engineered to meet the Apple Family's needs, but I'd say her upbringing would play a larger role- she was raised to be professional and helpful, with Mac-like behaviors, but still acknowledged as a Unix system as well. The reason she wasn't scared of System 6-tan though, is simpler. Even when System 6-tan had violent outbursts (this was before her improvements in stability), A/UX-tan had the strength and willingness to restrain her.

That sounds like a good idea too- Amiga-tan didn't take Commodore's downfall as hard as some of the others, Minuteman-tan, VIC-20-tan and C64-tan were the most devastated since they worked so hard to get the success they had. PET-tan would have still taken the fall hard, but by that point may have been more laid-back than she used to be.

It wasn't just that 1.0 and 2.0 couldn't keep up (that wasn't actually the main reason, as you said, so many more discontinued OS-tans would have otherwise been exiled), but also because they weren't very successful, and were seen as a liability more than an asset by that point. But the main reason was that they were conscientious objectors who outright opposed the imperialistic direction the Windows Family was taking. They didn't want to take part in scorched-earth tactics, and were seen as a threat from within.

As for DOS and 3.1, they both still had a considerable userbase, and although they didn't take part in scorched-earth tactics like 95 and NT, they were supportive of their endeavors.

None of the Mac/Apple-tans got exiled (Apple III-tan and System 3.4-tan ran away from home years before) since there family unity and honor were strongly valued, and because of Apple II-tan's influences. She'd never let any of her family get exiled.

First, a little bit of background info:

The Mac-tans in the first half of the 90's were really confident that they would never be involved in a large-scale war, and didn't see the Windows-tans as a threat (i.e: Apple doubted Windows 3.0's success). They were short-sighted, slow to change, and none of them were particularly good tacticians. (Apple had some 90's successes, but some huge blunders too.)

They never expected a full-blown OS Wars, let alone from the Windows-tans. Reality hit them hard. Very hard, and suffered the consequences. System 7-tan and 7.5-tan tried their own aggressive tactics, which backfired and led to desperation attacks, which the other Mac-tans didn't object to because they were trapped in a state of desperation themselves.

Could it have been possible that System 7.5-tan was actually exiled because she didn't try to atone for her mistakes (at least System 7 did afterwards)?

Mac OS8-tan was born during the worst of the OS Wars and would have initially been used to the desperation felt by her family, but would be disappointed now. She's still a bit upset over what happened and that she couldn't get very involved, and now she tries to keep the peace and motivate others to learn from past mistakes.

Same would go for OS9-tan, who was born during an unstable transitional phase, when the family was trying to rebuild what remained of their territory.

I have seen some pictures of 7.5-tan and OS9-tan getting along, so it looks like they were able to put the past behind them, at least somewhat... just as long as they don't talk about family politics.



Chocofreak13

Quote from: Krizonar

Quote from: Chocofreak13

NECROPOST~~~~~


how about we move to a different topic? i found some family tree pictures when i was pictrolling, so has any work been made on windows/mac family trees?

and anyone think we should make a linux family tree? or would that be too complex?

I've made a Mac family tree, and although it may not coinincide with everyone's ideas, some if its backstory got forwarded to the Annex project.

Linux family tree? How many thousands of branches? Xd

New theory, AU/X tan and System 7 are sisters. I'll have to update my family tree.
OSX and AU/X still aren't related though.
"...I learned AU/X has built in software to emulate System 7, much like Rhapsody has it to emulate System 8 (and had an exchange of features). I just didn't know that before I went out and read up on AU/X.

"-A/UX is a stepsister to the Classic Macs, and a presumably a cousin to the OSXs, highly influenced by the former. "
hm?
I went to check and yes, she is a step-sister (to system 7) but, I do disagree that she's related to the OSX's because they had very little in common and did not share a common ancestor. OSX is BSD based, AU/X is UNIX System V, they are actually complete opposites!
"System V was considered one of the two major "flavors" of UNIX, the other being Berkeley Unix (BSD)."


Next and Rhapsody being sisters (or at least, closely related) was already on my fanmade family chart ^^;

Oh yes, I had overlooked that version 1 and 2 of A/UX boots System 6, I connected them horizontally, (indicating "step-sisters", not by blood and since they're all related, that technically makes her an even looser "step-sister" to the rest of the classics, so it fits) on my tree. It should be quite accurate now. I also updated backstories.

I also added Newton to the tree and gave her some as well... trying to connect her to some other Mac OS failed, so I had to come up with something new.
Let's say that after Leopard saved Antares' life from the future, the Apple family... thought different!

Yes, and the current backstory theories I have definitely allow for these :) In my mind, A/UX is Apple's way of "thinking different" using the advanced technology that Leopard used to save Antares. They reverse engineered anything about genetics and technology they could find from it. So the reason A/UX is not scared of Antares is because they are similar! (although A/UX is not a cyborg and relied more on genetic engineering technology, she is also NOT the first Unix to have had such modifications done ;) http://ostan-collections.net/wiki/UNIX ). This also helps explain why System 7 was finally a healthy system, even at launch and why the more current OSX girls are cat girls while Rhapsody is not. Newton under this theory is genetically engineered to fill a niche (much like A/UX), which explains her completely non-standard height and body form (fairy) as well as how she doesn't relate to anyone. :)

interesting? makes plot? makes sense? I hope so, though tell me if it's not/doesn't.

My explanation may need simplifying :P

Quote from: Aurora Borealis
Mac-tan/OSX-tan/OSX Public Beta... --whoever she is!!-- are catgirls.

Kodiak :)

Hm, that it could, all the first Macs were short, then, all of a sudden, after Antares, most are quite a bit taller.

Yes, she was raised in such a way as to be very professional and such (A/UX's security is so strong that it cannot even be emulated, A/UX recognized partitions, A/UX could scan over 4GB of Hardrive space, etc) , although from what I see, she had a silly side. She was conditioned very strongly, however, so definitely agreed that her upbringing played a very large role.

Well, there's that too, A/UX was one heck of a System :P
but the big question is... did A/UX ever have to restrain Antares? a lot happened in 1988 and I cannot find an exact release date of A/UX to check against System 6.0.2 (the patch that cured Antares) to see if my theory works of A/UX being... "made" of Antares. Though one thing is for sure, System 6 was released before A/UX.

All I can find useful is "Apple came out with their own version of POSIX compliant Unix, A/UX, in late 1988" which would put A/UX at coming out AFTER System 6.0.2, meaning Antares was fixed before A/UX came out, which would make my theory plausible. :)

@Choco: -step usually implies a divorce.
You can, you can! We can always shift topics.



Quote from: Stew

I once did a preliminary family tree of some 50's and 60's Mainframes/OS's.... it is horribly out dated now.


Quote from: bells

Protip: when it comes to Linux-tan's family tree, DO NOT THINK IN TERMS OF HUMAN FAMILIES. Or even other OS-tan families, besides the Unixen maybe (who have a similarly muddled family structure). Her "code" has been spread throughout hell and creation and modified at every step of the way -- severely blurring the line between children, grandchildren, clones, etc.

Crazy random (conspiracy?) theory: IBM 7090-kun is the brother/counsin of SAGE and CTSS (and, I guess, PDP-1-chan by association). Using this simple formula:


If SAGE = IBM AN/FSQ-7, and IBM 7090 = a solid-state AN/FSQ-7, then 7090-kun = SAGE-sama's sibling... or cousin... or something.


Not to mention the fact that CTSS-sama = both CTSS and the IBM 7094 computer on which it ran; and the 7094 = a modified 7090.

Well, I'd consider SAGE and CTSS 7090-kun's full sisters (since they all share a common hardware base) while PDP-1-chan would be his half-sister (since SAGE and CTSS are related to original!Whirlwind, while PDP-1-chan is related to TX-0 Project!Whirlwind).

Personally, I don't think A/UX and System 7 or Rhapsody and System 8 are related.... not even vaguely. A/UX is a Unix, Sys. 7-tan is a Mac Classic.... emulation =/= relation. Just, no.

But.

I would suggest they be intellectually-related - that is to say, step-siblings - of totally different bloodlines, but a part of the same family. This has already been established, of course....

Likewise, I don't think A/UX and the OSXes are related either; while they share a common Unix heritage, A/UX didn't influence OSX enough to be considered an ancestor...

I did a second relationship map, this time focusing solely on parent - child, sibling and conceptual lineages.

 

Straight line = blood relationship

Broken line = conceptual relationship

Lines deriving from a single parent that SHARE a single root = a common genetic heritage separate from the parent (See: important point #1, below)

Lines deriving from a single parent but NOT sharing a single root = siblings

Two important conclusions can be drawn if you believe this map:


1. I am going to use a specific example to explain the first important point. Note how SAGE, CTSS and IBM 7090-kun all derive from a single root. Whirlwind-hime is the mother of SAGE-sama. CTSS-tan and IBM 7090-kun are SAGE's siblings, but NOT necessarily Whirlwind's children. How is this possible? Because SAGE (the AN/FSQ-7 computer) inspired the creation of the IBM 7090 (a solid-state AN/FSQ-7), and the IBM 7090 inspired the creation of the IBM 7094 (which, as you will recall, is the computer on which CTSS ran). This means SAGE-sama's creation is directly responsible for the creation of 7090-kun and CTSS-tan (who represents the OS and 7094 hardware), and that 7090 and CTSS are more closely related to SAGE-sama than Whirlwind-hime. 

A different person might interpret this relationship as being that of a parent and child, or cloning*, but going by the backstory we've established for those characters, their being brother and sister makes the most sense. It would also explain why SAGE, 7090 and CTSS share common traits (for example, brownish hair, average height, physically-mature) while PDP-1-chan - their sister - is radically different (small, child-like, blonde). Blue eyes is a trait found on both sides of the family, and can be attributed to their mother, Whirlwind.

*An example of cloning can be found on Plan 9-tan's family tree; note how Plan B and Octopus are rooted from the same stem as Plan 9 herself. In this case, Plan B and Octopus are NOT Plan 9-tan's children, but artificially-created siblings. 

2. In the earliest days of OS-tans, hardwares and OS-tans could be related. Today there is a clear distinction between a hardware-tan and OS-tan, and they are typically NOT related (exceptions include microcomputer-tans, who are both hardware and software). In the beginning there were only "computer-tans" and the distinction between software and hardware was blurred. Whirlwind, for example, was both hardware and software. She "produced" four children, some of whom were hardware and some of whom were hardware and software. One of these "hybrid"-tans, CTSS, produced an entirely OS-tan child, Multics, the descendants of whom are entirely OS-tan in nature.

Which brings me to the conclusion that hybrid (part hardware, part software or OS) computer-tans can have hardware or software children; and that hardware-tans running rudimentary software can produce OS-tan children (this is how the first early OSes were made). But an OS-tan or software-tan can never produce a hardware-tan offspring.

Quote from: Aurora Borealis
Btw, do you know who the mother of the System/360-tans are?

I didn't know that Plan B and Octopus would be considered cloned -siblings- to Plan 9!


If i recall correctly the System/360-tans were created from scratch.

Plan B-tan is Plan 9-tan's clone - making her Plan 9-tan's genetic twin. Octopus-tan is Plan B's clone, which also means she's Plan 9-tan's sister. (Cause a copy of a copy is the same as a copy...)

Quote from: Chocofreak13
i like point 2. point 1 is slightly confusing, but 2 is crisp and clear and easy to understand. :3 good theory bells, it makes sense. -w-


It's pretty simple to follow, if you stop thinking in terms of human families (since, we've established that human family structures sort of don't exist among OS-tans). I'm basically saying that, within OS-tan families, siblings can be created from one another.

(from the archives:) One interesting link between Homeko and DOS/Batch 11-tan (because one could theorize DOS/Batch 11 is perhaps the oldest known ancestor of XP) would be some of the attitude. As I said before, I see DOS/Batch 11-tan as being difficult and grating, maybe even a little crazed at times...perhaps some of her attitude was passed down to her great-great-granddaughter Homeko (which, as we all know, is canonized as having a difficult, crazy, albeit perverse, demeanor...though she's nice to me XD)

Another link I see is directly between NT-san and VMS-san, both being excellent swordswomen.

As for other character ideas, I see RT-11-tan as physically being around the age range of an older teenager, on the short side (because RT-11 is described as being "small"; I've no idea what "small" means, though). Attitude-wise, being a little more lighthearted than her other siblings; she enjoys gaming (or I should say very old games) a lot, and loves to challenge people to matches
If we can define what gaming is to an OS-tan...XD

RSX 11-san I think would look similar to VMS-san, except with light gray or silver hair; Her attitude would be on the somber side (growing up with DOS/batch 11-tan as a mother/mentor couldn't have been fun XD); she gave her daughter, VMS-san, all her knowledge of fighting, bravery, and a substantial amount of her unhappy nature (because I think VMS-san had a somewhat quiet attitude in youth...when she discovered her clone, NT-tan, I think that would have driven her to her current fringe, slightly psychotic state)

we had gotten prototypes of the windows and mac family trees done. :3

Chocofreak13

evolution, hybrids, hardware, and other species/classes
Quote from: Bella

...Also, I had a thought (all this talk of OS/hardware/software relationships gave me the idea)-- d'ye suppose that hardware, software and OS-tans are distinctly different species? I mean, they're all alike in that they're humanoid, but that they're essentially unrelated?

-(Computer) hardware-tans would almost always be mortal and age. Not nearly as quickly as humans, but they wouldn't be ageless like OS-tans either (since hardware is physical and prone to physical damage). Hardware-tans would have the most affinity with OS-tans (since hardware and OS directly communicate) and very rarely work with software-tans.

They were the first of the three groups to be created by humans, and have an existence spanning many decades (although earliest ancestors may have been created hundreds-- even thousands-- of years ago, depending on what you consider "computer hardware" to be).

-OS-tans can be mortal or immortal and are almost always ageless. As a species, they're more conducive to magic (sourcery if you will) because software tends to be more mailable than hardware (existing only as data-- information-- instead of being physical like hardware*). Equally cooperative with hardware and software.

They were created after hardware-tans, to do things (maybe that aforementioned magic?) that hardwares are incapable of.

-Software-tans are related to OS-tans, but still distant enough to be their own species. The same comments regarding mortality, aging and magic-conductivity that apply to OS-tans apply to software-tans. Typically regarded as a lower caste in the computer-tan universe, software-tans are generally dependent upon OS-tans for employment, companionship and ultimately survival (since you can't use a program w/o an OS to run it on). They have very little contact with hardware-tans.

The last species, Firmware-tans, would be something akin to a cross of hardware and program-tan or OS-tan; they'd probably be the lowest class, but one of the largest, since firmware is used in almost EVERYTHING electronic. They usually play a support role for or intermediary between hardware and OS-tan.

I also imagine that only members of a certain species would be able to have children-- meaning that two OS-tans could, in theory, beget a lil' OS-tan, but that a software and OS-tan couldn't. (For instance, there have been rare cases when two OSes have been merged to create a third OS-- but since software, hardware and OS are so different, you could never cross any of the three and make a new product). Then again, there are some instances (typically historical) of hardware and OS being so closely connected that the result is a hybrid of the two-- but these were more likely the result of human creation than natural crossbreeding between species.

I've thoroughly read through all this and will comment in-depth, but I'd like to add something: I decided to split these -tans into different groups exactly so I COULD avoid the problem of the evolution of OS-tans. Aside from evolution in social customs and outward appearances (clothing, etc), I'd rather not think about hardware/software/OS-tans evolving because I've always assumed that they were created by humans and are not some sort of natural phenomena within the OS-tan universe.

As for OS-tan deaths, death is usually caused by a diminished userbase-- OSes with the largest userbases are the healthiest, while those with very small or nonexistent userbases are dead. There are exceptions to this rule, of course-- Multics and SAGE-sama, for instance, should by all means be dead, but are considered alive for story purposes. Xenix-tan, on the other hand, could arguably be considered alive (since Xenix can be, and is, emulated) but she's dead for the sake of story purposes.

Also, when I speak of hardware-tans, I don't mean drones of nameless, random pieces of computer hardware-- I mean one -tan for each distinct computer system. Like there would be a first-gen iMac-tan (or -kun), an IBM PC-kun, a PDP-10-kun-- not a character for every single computer ever made, because that would result in bedlam rather quickly.

@ Aurora: microcomputer-tans would be what I described as "hybrids" of OS/software and hardware-tan. Since the OS/BASIC interpreter and hardware are SO closely connected (at least from a user viewpoint) to be almost inseparable. This will also come up a lot with very old OSes and computer-tans, from the days when there was only a thin line of distinction between the hardware and the software controlling the hardware.

If you want to look at it from an evolution POV, I see them as the transitional species between hardware and OS-tan. The difference from being that evolution implies a transformation from simpler to more complex lifeforms, I don't think hardware-tans are less developed than OS-tans-- they look and act alike and have the same intelligence, it's just that OS-tans can manipulate "energy" or "magic" in ways that hardwares can't.

@ Choco: the evolution of Unix to Linux is more like a... bloodline... if you ask me. It's like talking about the evolution of yourself from your great-grandmother. (BTW, the Unix-tans and Linux-tans are supposed to be related; they're supposed to be roughly from the same "race" or culture, sort of like two people sharing the same country and customs being considered related).

I wouldn't dismiss armies of random hardware-tan masses for storyline purposes, but then again, there's not a lot I would dismiss for storyline purposes. It's not my place to tell people what they can and can't do for a story, just because it doesn't precisely match up with my vision of the OS-tan universe-- short of someone inventing new characters to replace existing ones, or radically re-writing established backgrounds for the characters, that is.

I like the Mac "mafia" idea, as for the Linuxes being like Commies... I actually think that they'd be quite the opposite. Sure, they ARE strongly socialistic, but they're also a very open, transparent culture and attach a lot of stigma to secrecy and shady dealings. If anything, the old school Unices would have have been more Communistic, not really philosophically but politically-- at least in their rapid takeover of vast amounts of "territory" through rather... underhanded... means. >.>

Sorry for that TL;DR: but I've always loved inventing new species and races and stuff. This was fun. ^^
Quote from: Aurora
BTW, I edited my post and went more in-depth about it, but I agree, Bella.

Still wanting to know about the Mac 'mafia', I don't think the Mac-tans are in it by choice, and they have to follow orders, or at least the OSX-tans do, since the 'protection' doesn't apply as much --or at all-- to the Classic Mac-tans. Speaking of which, I think the Classic Mac-tans have stayed in the House of Mac out of loyalty for the OSX-tans, and the OSX-tans are grateful but have not experienced any other upbringing aside from the 'protection' they live under so they have to comply with executive orders.


I read your edited post and would have to agree with you on all points. :)

At least when I envision this Mac Mafia scenario, it's not exactly like the typical idea of organized crime-- not even criminal at all, of course. But I imagine the Macs are a group that have a VERY high regard for family, honour and tradition, and have a lot of gratitude and reverence for their leader-- don, so to speak-- Jobs. ^^'

They know they can never seize political power and regain their lost territory (the home computer market) but this doesn't faze them very much because they're comfortable in their own niche market-- or racket, if you will. They're generally good-willed and friendly, too, but they can go a bit overboard when it comes to proving a point to their competition.
Quote from: Chocofreak13

are we considering the vintage OSes their own species or just a class of OS?


Depends of the Vintage-tan in question. Some are purely hardware, some are OS-tan, others (like the micros) are hybrid of the two.
(hybrid) It's a fusion of two (or possibly more?) different species... just like a mule isn't considered its own species, but a cross of horse and donkey. So they're both hardware and OS-tan or program-tan.

But I guess you could say it's its own species for the sake of organisation...

I suppose file type should be a kind of -tan. Hardwares, of course, could be split us further into different sub-categories: actual computers, peripherals, storage devices, etc. but I'd rather not do that now.
We're overthinking things, guys! :V

As least in the case of hardware, software and OSes and class system, that's a fluid thing. At the dawn of computer-tans, all that existed were hardware-tans. Somewhere along the line, softwarish/OS elements were incorporated into hardwares, but it wasn't until the 1950s that OS-tans split away from hardwares and a separate species and not until the late 50s/early 60s that they jumped slightly ahead of hardwares on the social class scale. Software/App-tans are a bit difficult to judge: they're vital to OS-tans in support roles and some become just as powerful and popular (and even richer) than some of their OS-tan counterparts (Photoshop-tan, for example) but they still have a lot of strange customs that prevent them from full participation in the computer community (like being restricted to certain OS social circles... in the case of a Mac only or Windows only program).

And also, like Aurora pointed out, social status does not necessarily equal economic status. There are plenty of OS-tans who are poor and software and hardware-tans who are wildly rich: the difference being, namely, how they interact with each other (in other words, no amount of riches could buy a Linux-only app-tan the power to socialize with Windows OS-tans).

I also agree that hybrid OS-and-hardware-two-in-one -tans should be considered on par with OS-tans.

As for processors being their own -tans, I don't wanna trample on anyone elses' designs or views of the OS-tan universe (and I have seen some nice processor/HDD/etc -tans), but in the computer hardware-tan designs I create it'll be assumed that those are a part of the computer-tan himself/herself. (IE, the processor is the brain, the HDD is the memory centre, the mobo is the spine/centre of the nervous system... and so on and so forth).
And just how the hell are we supposed to do this?

EDIT: Also, bear in mind that I don't want to freak people out by telling them "this is the way things are". Everyone seems to have his or her own vision on the OS-tan universe (seeing as the fandom is "fanon" and not "canon"), and I don't want to be intolerant of other ideas...
Mac
Linux
Unix
Windows
DOS

I'm not exactly feeling the vintage class, since it's so broad... it could refer to anything from a mainframe to a micro. I'd further the divisions to include various non-Unix:
-Minicomputer OSes (the DEC-tans and DG-tans for example)
-Microcomputers (OS/hardware hybrids like the Commodores, Ataris, early Apples)
-Mainframe-tans (the IBM-tans, CDC-tans, Multics, etc)
-Others

As for the Hardware-tans, it would seem Wikipedia has already laid out different classifications for us.
Also agreeing with Nej on the lineage v. family thing-- two people can be of the same tribe, culture, family, even if they don't have the same bloodline.
Quote from: NejinOniwa
Imma go out on a limb and say you people who want categorization of programs for STORYLINE purposes, go ahead and do whatever you want with that. It does seem quite unnecessary to categorize them as a central effort, however, since it goes without saying that programs are one of the more obscure classes...aside from a VERY select few.

...

As for the subcategorization itself - I see it as counterproductive and a quite useless effort. Looking at the OS side for example, what categorization we have of them is in affiliation - which the apps don't have nearly as much of - and to some extent, heritage - which apps usually don't go by with, seeing as they normally evolve from themselves and merely version-up, or otherwise. A very good exception from this is the entire Mozilla family; their Gecko engine is derived off later Netscape (i think?), and FX, TB and Seamonkey all stem from Mozilla Suite; they also have distinct version changes, which could be used for certain storyline purposes.
The fact, however, is that this sort of easymode family tree is VERY uncommon from what I know in the apps cloud, and thus the easiest thing would be to skip the lesser classification altogether in cases where the family/heritage categorization can't be made - all in all, I say that's the sort of categorization system we should stick to over most classes.


This.

The entire reason I even got to thinking about hardware-tan/OS-tan/software-tan classification was for my own story purposes... it's good to have some organisation, but let's not get bogged down in semantics so to speak. <.<
Slightly OT, but I've been trying to figure out how hardware/OS-tan relationships work in conjunction with OS-to-certain architecture relationships.

The Unices and Linuxes, for example, would probably be very democratic and open toward computer-tans of all varieties, since *nixes are very portable and used on tons of different processor architectures.

Whereas the DEC OS-tans (for example) might be more "xenophobic" toward hardware-tans outside of their own cultures... since DEC OSes could only run on DEC computers. Same goes for the Mac-tans, and any of the old-school OS-tans. (Since portability is a relatively modern idea.)

[/randomthoughts]
@Aurora: the OSXen can now socialise with non-Apple hardware-tans, but it would probably still be against social mandates to do so.

Perhaps, but hardware or software the Mainframe-tans are still very powerful and would probably respect each other (at least to a point. ^^').

@Stew: If SCOPE ain't happy ain't nobody happy, huh? d:

@Kari: Yep, the Windows-tans are definitely sociable when it comes to hardware-tans (yet another Unix/Windows parallel... portability, portability, portability). The OSX-tans COULD venture outside of their Apple-centric society, but would have to do so in the utmost secrecy... just because it's possible, doesn't mean they'd necessarily WANT to do it.

This is something I've realised all along, since OSes work directly with hardware. I think it would vary depending on the character in question... some hardware-tan/OS-tan pairings would constitute friends, business partners and couples. But they definitely wouldn't be relatives of any sort... remember, hardwares and OSes are completely different species. While they look and act alike, they're biologically unrelated and incompatible and derive from completely different ancestries.

Quote
The hard part of this "virtuality" is that it doesn't weave well into many of the story works so far (mine in particular, since it explicitly depicts i.e. Ruka waking up inside the mountain that's thought to house the Perimeter facility etc). The -tans are also tightly knit together with their "faction leaders", that is, corporate/development/ideology head (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer, rms, etc)


This, this this this. I know the "virtual world" theory is rather popular, but I find the inspirations in the "real world" so much richer to draw upon. And attaching the -tans actual places, people and events makes it more tangible for the reader -- and can even include a good (albeit warped) dose of computer history if done correctly.

Quote
The base view I use is that OS-tans are built from code; it may be completely new, or based upon an earlier OS' release. In the case of subsequent kernel versions etc, I'd imagine some sort of "mothering" going on, but nothing like the human process due to the fact that OS-tans, while possibly immature in other ways, ARE made to be "ready to go" from day one. The first runnable/compiled release marks the first incarnation of an OS; after that, betas may spawn off in various directions before they conclude in a final thread as the finished OS. Like some sort of eerie robot, one turns it on, works its works and adds parts to it. Ofc, not by mechanics, but by code - we'll get back on that when I have time, but atm it's full holoday madness and I've got work to go to in a bit, so meh.


This, again. Where code = something like the genes of OS-tan (since isn't that what it essentially is to a OS/program? The instruction set that gives a software its identity and maps its behaviour). I've always imagined that, excluding the odd androidic OS-tan, they'd have replicated human bodies -- right down to the same biological processes (eating and reproduction just to make an example) -- but that they'd be, on a genetic level, completely unlike and incompatible with humans, and the other -tan class -- hardware -- neither of which carry this "source" as their genetic material.

I also imagined that OS-tans would, in general, reach physical maturity much quicker than a human, and that once the reached maturity, they would not age. Of course this maturity could be anything from an apparent age of seven to forty depending on the -tan in question. And although I suppose they have reproductive systems they wouldn't use that to continue their species; instead opting for... um... I dunno what to call it. Pod-babies? O.o

Quote
The Code itself is something of great importance to most -tans - it is what they're made of, after all, and some even take to a sort of religious-like view of it, comparable to the worship of ancestors and so on. While relations to their human creators may vary, I imagine it's all good as long as support is provided in some manner; some others, however, may have cut ties with their old "faction" or even started their own (for all purposes, Unix is a good example of this).


Yes, yes, yes again. Of course this Code-ancestor worship would vary by -tan; the Unixes and Unix-likes would be VERY into this practise (since Unix-and-*Nix-like users usually relish the "old" status of their OS and advertise this fact) while others -- such as Windows-tans -- wouldn't venerate their ancestry as much (when was the last time you heard a Windows user brag about their OS's DOS/OS2/VMS ancestry?)

Some OS-tans are attached to their companies and others are essentially free, as you said, Unix is a great example of the latter. She became SO powerful and her reach so widespread that she outgrew the need for one. Linux might be another example.

Quote
When it comes to program-tans and so on I've used multiple approaches so far in stories, but IMO it depends a lot on how "separate" the program and host system is, alongside how powerful the program can be; Git, for example, while a program, is also a great system of its own, as well as someone who's responsible for handling the entire Linux kernel repository, and more - thus, I determined she was good to characterize. Finder (Mac) however, is more of a shell or part of the system, and very integrated into it; I worked this into it being a spell usable by the various Mac-tans.


Right-o. To make another example, Vi is considered a part of Unix but is important enough to warrant his own -tan; conversely, Time Machine is viewed as an object in literal OS-tan terms -- as Snow/Leopard's, well, time machine.

Quote
Overall that's my main issue with program-tans; as they're at the same time entities of their own, they are also the base of all Sorcery (as Sorcery is essentially the extended magic ability of -tans via code) used by OS-tans. It comes down to a question of who goes where.


Chocofreak13

Quote from: bells
Something that also bothered me. (Especially when it comes to very "primal" programs, like Daemons and the like). Maybe program-tans GIVE their OS-tans a portion of their Sorcery powers?

Quote
I don't think it would be wise to disregard the Sorcery concept for program-tans, as it's the base for much parts of several -tans (Linux and other Open -tans, for example) - it'll be hard to come with the end verdict, but that's that.


This too. Some program-tans have become powerful enough to almost be considered completely free entities; while all programs depend on OS-tans for survival, some are unattached enough (or attached to SO MANY OSes) that they can get by completely on their own (Emacs-kun is this way).


I would argue that virtualization is no different from running an OS on its original hardware; after all, it's the same code (let's say Windows 1.0 for this argument) running on a physical machine (an iMac), it just happens to have a virtulization software acting as intermediary (VirtualBox).

NOW: I would make an exception for emulated systems that are gone and have been "rebuilt from scratch" so to speak -- say, an ENIAC or Univac emulator (both of which exist), but I'm increasingly considering that there's no such thing as death -- at least as we know it -- for OS-tans, since they exist as code and as long as that code exists, they can be brought back from the dead.

Make sense? D:


Quote from: Aurora Borealis

Those ideas all sounds very good, even the part about the Mac-tans being forbidden from interacting with non-Apple hardware-tans.

But many of the vintage home computer-tans blur the line between hardware and software, representing not just the computer but the OS/BASIC it runs. So would they be considered both at the same time? Though I think they'd be more in line with the OS-tans, since these characters would also be cooperative with the software-tans.

Hope that doesn't interfere with that the Mac-tans (especially the Classic ones) are known to visit the vintage-tans from time to time! ^^;

I agree that hardware-tans would have widely varying lifespans, with time not just taking a physical toll but also an emotional toll for those old hardware-tans that were touted as the NEXT BIG THING when they were new.

But I don't see the Mac-tans as supremacists themselves, in fact they're very friendly with most others and have friends from different factions, but it's the security enforced by the executives that is, and forces them to be shut-ins for the most part.

When you're referring to the Classic-tans, are you referring to them being less (or not) 'protected' by the security --and giving them the freedom to be with others, though at the cost of protection from danger-- or the rest of the family, since I see the Mac-tans being a close-knit family despite major generation gaps. (This referencing the considerably large userbase of vintage Mac hobbyists who use both the Classic Mac OS and OSX in the present day)

I can certainly see Tiger-tan and Leopard-tan being the rebellious types though, and interact with 'unapproved' outsiders to challenge the the security guards.

As for OSes that can run on multiple architectures, I see it as an OS-tan being multi-lingual.

I like the forbidden love idea between ME-tan and Mac OS9-kun. While the more laid-back Mac-tans and Windows-tans may approve, there'd be fierce opposition from 95-tan and OSX-tan.

The Windows Family is laid back, with the younger Windows-tans having grown up in peace and prosperity their whole lives. They'd be accepting towards various software-tans --though too accepting at times, to the point of risking their own safety--, but there a lot of secrets are being kept from them.

Their security, enforced by their executives are historical revisionists who have erased records of the family history before the OS Wars, so the Windows-tans know nothing of 1.0-tan, 2.0-tan, PC-DOS-tan, Xenix-tan, and OS/2-tan being a part of the family instead of an enemy. Poor MS DOS-tan, who is still part of the Windows Family, and remembers all of the family's history but is not allowed to speak of it!

I'm still iffy on the idea of the Mac-tan mafia since almost all of them are way too friendly for that (an exception maybe being the gun-toting System 7.5-tan), but do you think may be that way against their will?

The Linux-tans vary a lot. Some of them affiliate with the hard-lined 'elite' Unices, while others are eager to interact with anyone and don't care for stealth tactics, and some of them live as hermits and wanderers. The Unices as a whole are similarly diverse. But there are conflicts between the more elite, and more free Linux-tans.

I think the Vintage-tans would be in a class of their own, but as equals to the OS-tans.

The lifespan for an OS-tan is characterized by the OS's popularity when it was current, how much it continues to be used (if at all), and how well remembered it is.

In the case of Apple I-tan, she represents a fairly well-known computer that had an extremely limited run, but lives on in emulators and Apple I replicas being made currently.

Another case is Xenix-tan, an obscure Unix version from Microsoft. Wasn't widely used or remembered. She died in obscurity.

Even though the Commodore 64 is long-discontinued, C64-tan will live for a long time with all the emulators out there, including a fully licensed one for the iPhone!

However, some life/death cases aren't so clear-cut, or decided for story reasons. Like with Apple III-tan, representing a system that sold very poorly with a high percentage of defective units 30 years ago, and she's still alive!


EDIT: On the OS-tan wiki front page, I created a section for OS-tan theories and conjectures, and will add the evolutions and species theories. :)

I see the each of them as distinct but equally important species, with the vintage computer-tans being in a class of their own. Many of them had not just their own proprietary hardware, but also their own OS/BASIC, file formats, and ROM/firmware in one package.

There was some of that divergence in the 80's, with the DOS-tans and the Mac OS-tans, but it wasn't until the 90's that this became the norm and not the exception.

It was mainly due to MS DOS and the different Windows versions running on various hardware brands. The other major competitor was of course the Mac OS and its distinct hardware. This sacrifice of hardware+OS integration has the advantage of flexibility and adaptability, mainly for OSes that run on x86 architecture.

Sure, the Mac OS has always been confined to Apple hardware, but not just one particular model.

BTW, I edited my post and went more in-depth about it, but I agree, Bella.

Still wanting to know about the Mac 'mafia', I don't think the Mac-tans are in it by choice, and they have to follow orders, or at least the OSX-tans do, since the 'protection' doesn't apply as much --or at all-- to the Classic Mac-tans. Speaking of which, I think the Classic Mac-tans have stayed in the House of Mac out of loyalty for the OSX-tans (even though most of the Classic-tans would actually be better suited as Vintage Federation members), and the OSX-tans are grateful but have not experienced any other upbringing aside from the 'protection' they live under so they have to comply with executive orders. :(
Each 'class' of OS-tan should still be the same species, just of different cultures. Still support the idea of calculator-tans as mercenaries.
I think the hybrids should still be equals to the OSes, at least for storyline purposes.
Economic status can vary a lot between the OS-tans too. Windows 1.0-tan and 2.0-tan are OS-tans, but as part of the Vintage Federation, they're by no means wealthy.

And there's the OS-tans of the Anti$oft Coalition, with their constant financial problems!
Don't forget the Unixes and the mainframes.

The vintage class has some overlap with Mac and Windows. And Yggdrasil might count as a vintage Linux OS.

The DOSes are listed as their own class in the wiki and Annex Project.
I agree with the classes, and the family vs. lineage thing, but it's a little stranger than that...

The Windows Family and the Mac House both have two united lineages.

With the whole extended Apple Family, make that at least three lineages with the Classic Apple-tans (Apple I/II/IIGS/III), or four with the iPod-tans. Or five if Newton-tan is considered a lineage of her own.

While those are families (and their own factions) of united lineages, the Unix lineage is divided into different families and factions!
The OS Wars arc involving the Windows and Macs reminded me of the Montagues and Capulets respectively in the anime adaptation "Romeo x Juliet". :)
I agree with the classes.
if OS-tans can die, programs probably can too.
That all sounds good. Likewise Windows and DOS would be open to many different brands of hardware, if not different architectures.

OSX Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard would be rule-breakers though among the Mac-tans, being able to run on other x86 hardware. Still can be done, although Apple has been cracking down on that with the newer Snow Leopard releases.

However, among the mainframes are some characters who represent OSes (i.e: SCOPE, NOS, MACE, etc.), plus some that represent only hardware (i.e: Harvard Mark Series, ENIAC, etc.), or those that represent both but mainly the hardware (i.e: Cray-1). I wonder if that would make for some interesting debates among the Mainframe Guild members.

@Krizonar: Nobody else here has really given the hardware much thought since we see them as separate from the OS, but your ideas have their merits, and bring up the point that OSes can't operate without their hardware!

I had thought of the architectures as being languages, but you bring up a really good point there! I consider the architectures to represent different things in different contexts, such as languages (i.e: NT-tan recognizes many architectures and is multi-lingual) or philosophies (the "Harvard Architecture" of the Harvard Mark-tans), or literally styles of architecture (i.e: QNX-tan builds a lot of stuff, mainly mechanical, and that's an OS ported to many platforms), but I also like the idea of 'brain style' too.

My theories have some similarities with bella's and Nej's, while I believe the OS-tan setting is in cyberspace and takes place in OS countries, I also see the settings as Cyberpunk+Fantasy Counterpart Cultures to each OSes hometown/region, with lots of inspiration from the real world.

I fully agree with the 'ancestor worship' concept, and idea of all OS-tans having sorcery powers to run programs and code, while depending on special programs to give them their powers. Would there be different styles of sorcery?

Obviously, some OS families use more of it outside of just carrying out code than others, i.e: Multics, the DECs with geomancy powers, the Unices...

Some software are represented as other characters (i.e: the antivirus-tans, browser-tans), but others may represent items (i.e: Leopard-tan's Time Machine).

Some apps, such as art programs could be represented either as separate characters or simply art tools an OS-tan wields, depending on the artist and/or storywriter's preferences.

Your explanations are pure win, Nejin! :D

With your explanations on life force and code sharing, does emulation count, and help keep an otherwise dying/sick/insane OS-tan alive, healthy and sane? I imagine that it would, with emulators granting emulated OSes a special kind of code that would allow those OSes to run on hardware they otherwise wouldn't, and for the host hardware to accept the emulated OS.

And what about OS-tans that are deceased but can still be emulated?

I agree that deceased OS-tans aren't completely dead if they can be emulated (I see them as ghosts that normally can't be seen or heard until called upon, and barely have any power of their own), but would this take away from some of the potential drama in OS-tan stories, such as bringing a long-dead relative back for a brief family reunion if the deceased could be seen again more than just one time?


Great explanations! if I get to writing or rewriting the wiki article on deceased OS-tans, I will include that info.

It seems that most of the deceased-tans are in either stages 1 or 2, but some of the 40's and 50's mainframes are gone from existence.

The idea about being able to connect to relatives' code pools/life forces could also explain why some OS-tans that seem like they should be deceased are still alive (i.e: C65-tan, Mac System 3.4-tan, Lisa-tan?), and others died so prematurely because they were 'left to die' and shut off from other connections (i.e: Apple I-sama, presumably also Multics and CTSS when they died).

If you mean in-story, there are still people who know of and remember them, including historians and former colleagues. But there are pictures of some of the ancient OS-tans.

Okay. In -most- cases, a discontinued system can still be considered alive if it still has a userbase.

GENIAC is one of those exceptions, apparently although there's no real userbase left, there are still working GENIAC units out there! It's such a simple computer that it's not that prone to hardware failure!

Systems such as Xenix, Apple I, ARX, and CTSS are 'dead', and are deceased OS-tans even though they live on through emulation. As I said, some deaths are for storyline purposes. But then again, emulation generally isn't practical and I don't expect anyone to use an emulated system for anything more than casual, hobbyist use. So there's no full-time, dedicated userbase for these.

If a deceased system has emulation available, it's not -completely- dead, and those characters live as ghosts. There's only one or two deceased OS-tans that completely came back from the dead.

Some systems are completely dead, with no emulators, the system dismantled, etc. This was the fate of many early computer-tans.

There are some borderline cases, such as C65-tan and System 3.4-tan (both extremely obscure, short-lived systems with no known emulators or viable userbase), but I consider them alive. Incidentally, both of them have cheated death many times in-story!

Another borderline case is SAGE-tan, since the SAGE OS is lost forever, and its hardware was shut down in '83, but much of the hardware is still in existence, including an intact computer in a museum. She didn't die when the last SAGE computer was shut down, but she went blind and lost much of her sanity.

The definition for death needs to be a bit more lenient:

*An OS-tan is (in most cases) deceased if there's not enough of a userbase using just original, unemulated hardware and software to keep the system alive.
*If emulation is available, the OS-tan still lives as a ghost in a dead-alive limbo state.
*OS-tans are completely dead if there's nothing of their system (hardware or software, and there's no emulation available) left in existence.




Quote from: Nejin Oniwa

If there's one thing one needs when producing any sort of material, it's order. Chaos plays a big role as well, but things need sorting out a lot more than they need shuffling around.

The hardware mortality is a good idea - especially since in the day of the now, not only do they suffer physical damage and degradation but all the more they become outdated. Thus recent hardware-tans will have to exist in extreme abundance, while very select few have actually aged well and remained "alive" and in use - although the hardware itself might not physically age very quickly, they mature and become obsolete very fast, and don't tend to live very long and/or break down at a young age. Easy fodder for TRAGEDY TRAGEDY TRAGEDY, the transience of hardware is.

OS-tans are wide in kind and number, and differ alot from each other - as natured by the difference in their code and usage of file systems, file types, etc. While software-tans are way more abundant, they always have to order themselves by family of end-user OSes; the caste system idea is a good idea indeed, and I would also like to lobby for conflicts over license usage (GPL vs closed source etc) among the families themselves. The Mac-tans as a supremacist familia of somewhat shut-in ladies and gents protected by Tiger SPs is an idea I endorse here, and only select families of software AND hardware -tans allowed to visit "the mansion"; the classics would most likely be less protected or even uncared for in the older cases, and the younger sisters may be rebellious from case to case - I don't know the Macs that well, though, so maybe leaving it to Aurora/Bella is a good idea in this case.

As for Firmware-tans, I don't know if they are entirely necessary - that'd mean that a classic iPod, for example, would have two -tans: the Hardware part, and the Firmware/OS part (which is the same, afaik) - and the same goes for your everyday gfx card as well. This seems highly redundant to me.

Chocofreak13

Quote from: Nejin
The Vintage-tans are a special case, both in -tan "biology" and capability - they were, after all, the origins, the Homo Erectus of computers, if you will - and and thus they are several of the things at once. It's not blurring the lines, since the lines were pretty much not invented at that time. Their evolution WAS the drawing of lines, so to speak. So rather than the HW-tans being "created" after the OS-tans, they would rather have been distinguished as of a different class than the OS-tans somewhere in the middle of the Vintage-tan evolution from computer-tan to multiple species, and since diverged further.

Some interesting events make for crossroading questions. For example, OS architecture porting (OpenVMS VAX to Alpha and Alpha to Itanium, for example) poses an interesting question. How is this to be considered in the element of the evolution of the OS itself? What is the difference, if any, between XP Pro and XP x64, or Mac OSX PPC and Intel? Is it constant among the differently platformed OSes?


As I'm writing this TL;DR, I realize I should REALLY start working on some OS-Tan fiction as soon as I get my stuff done and ready. Hope for a thread to be revived/rebooted somewhere during the summer, if all goes well. WRITERS READY UP~

Data does not age (kinda). Thus the only two deaths OS-tans (and vintages as well) are susceptible to would be death by complete extinction of all copies, OR the death of all supporting HW-tans (although emulation adds in an idea of possible OS NECROMANCY in this case).

Emulator-tans...now THAT'S a SW-tan class with some pretty big power, there. Necromancers/Spirit mediums much? -w-

Standardization and clarification is needed much here -w-;

At least, if one is aiming for some sort of canon continuity. Some might not. -w-

I meant, if OUR canon is to have some sort of continuity within itself, and not just be a strange assortment of buttcheeks and waffle iron.

Internal Apple Familia oppression...I CAN SMELL THE PLOT. Z:3

Linux-commie idea seems a bit meh to me as well. If for nothing else then the fact that Linux/Torvalds TEH CREATOR is from Finland, one of the few countries in the area to actually manage escaping Sovietification back in the day (and well managing to kick quite a heap of ruski ass in the Winter War), I'd say it'd make for a good attitude against that sort of stuff.

Vintage class of its own is pretty much what I've been thinking but more on that later as this demon has SHITLOADS OF WERK.

Also it'd be more appropriate to continue the OS-volution etc discussion and stuff not related to this IBM topic in Aurora's new thread:[/size]
http://ostan-collections.net/viewtopic.php?t=1238

Hybrid isn't exactly a species. It's a class composed of those with elements of multiple other species. Or what?
File types is one thing I'm hesitant to - it just seems like one thing to many in the bottle...
Well, I don't know about you guys - but my experience as a writer is that generalizing tends to be the better option instead of specifying (and that's despite me doing a LOT of specifying in my works) at most times. I'm just doubting whether it'll come to use at all if we do branch it off; then again, we're multiple writers so one might use what another might not...gah, so annoying. -_-;
Quote from: Chocofreak13
that's the benefit of having multiple writers, one person = one species or the like.

i'm a comic artist. and from my experience, details can make all the difference. i try not to generalize (except for crowd scenes, like the barfight i drew the other day), so that each thing sparkles in its own right. sure, it takes a little while, but the results are worth it.

I suppose that's very true for comics; The reverse rules for literature, since you just can't take it all in in one glance like you do with an image.
What was the stance on vintages, by the way? Classification in the basics may not be the best with the ways we've used them storyline-wise, so just "unclassified" or "Vintage Class" might be to prefer.
Vintage is partly a subclass, since OSes can be both Vintage and another class - the old OLD Apple OSes and the like.
Family trees are one of the most hellish things ever to construct, as a matter of fact. -_-

As for DOS/NT they're both the same class of OS-tan - just different lineage (what with the NTs being diverged off VMS to NT and onward whilst the DOSes are descended from MS-DOS and whatever came before that) to base things off. No class diff, same thing with the macs. Unless you start talking about classes as actual lineage, which would make things overly complicated and start dividing things for no reason, that is. I suggest we simply link "class" with affiliation for the sake of ezmodo.
Quote

Also agreeing with Nej on the lineage v. family thing-- two people can be of the same tribe, culture, family, even if they don't have the same bloodline.

The Clan does, however, only accept new members through the old-fashioned ways of marriage, birth and superior awesomeness, so we won't be getting our first new official member for a while until next year...
Ufufufufufufufu. -∀-

OS Classes seem fine. And speaking of the Windows family, it's an awful lot like what happened to the Swedish royal family back in the 1800's...what with the Vasas dying out and the Bernadottes taking their place, and such. Good riddance. -w-;
The obvious question:
WHO ARE THE CAPULETS, AND WHO ARE THE MONTAGUES?
An OS is software in that it's not hardware - it's code, data, information stored on some sort of hardware medium. Thus, it is software.

Not to say that I refer to OSes as software anywhere else than in technical references - I'm well off with either, although "software" is a smoother term, despite the wider spectrum.
Think like this: OSes are humans, and Apps/Programs are zoo animals. Both kinds are animals, but the zoo animals can't survive all that well without the humans' services (well, I dunno, but probably not all of them, at least) to promote their way of life. In turn, the humans are provided various services (entertainment and in some cases knowledge from studies, in this example) from the animals.
The same trip goes for OSes vs Apps/Programs. Both are software, but one is rather dependent on the other for an environment they can survive in as well as provide their services to the other.

METAPHORS YAY.
Imma go out on a limb and say you people who want categorization of programs for STORYLINE purposes, go ahead and do whatever you want with that. It does seem quite unnecessary to categorize them as a central effort, however, since it goes without saying that programs are one of the more obscure classes...aside from a VERY select few.

As for your question, choco, Websites are content displayed by an engine (software) run by a server OS; whereas the other three are merely possible subcategories of programs/apps/software/mcguffin, and thus go there anyway, subcategorization or not.

As for the subcategorization itself - I see it as counterproductive and a quite useless effort. Looking at the OS side for example, what categorization we have of them is in affiliation - which the apps don't have nearly as much of - and to some extent, heritage - which apps usually don't go by with, seeing as they normally evolve from themselves and merely version-up, or otherwise. A very good exception from this is the entire Mozilla family; their Gecko engine is derived off later Netscape (i think?), and FX, TB and Seamonkey all stem from Mozilla Suite; they also have distinct version changes, which could be used for certain storyline purposes.
The fact, however, is that this sort of easymode family tree is VERY uncommon from what I know in the apps cloud, and thus the easiest thing would be to skip the lesser classification altogether in cases where the family/heritage categorization can't be made - all in all, I say that's the sort of categorization system we should stick to over most classes.

The base view I use is that OS-tans are built from code; it may be completely new, or based upon an earlier OS' release. In the case of subsequent kernel versions etc, I'd imagine some sort of "mothering" going on, but nothing like the human process due to the fact that OS-tans, while possibly immature in other ways, ARE made to be "ready to go" from day one. The first runnable/compiled release marks the first incarnation of an OS; after that, betas may spawn off in various directions before they conclude in a final thread as the finished OS. Like some sort of eerie robot, one turns it on, works its works and adds parts to it. Ofc, not by mechanics, but by code - we'll get back on that when I have time, but atm it's full holoday madness and I've got work to go to in a bit, so meh.

The Code itself is something of great importance to most -tans - it is what they're made of, after all, and some even take to a sort of religious-like view of it, comparable to the worship of ancestors and so on. While relations to their human creators may vary, I imagine it's all good as long as support is provided in some manner; some others, however, may have cut ties with their old "faction" or even started their own (for all purposes, Unix is a good example of this).

When it comes to program-tans and so on I've used multiple approaches so far in stories, but IMO it depends a lot on how "separate" the program and host system is, alongside how powerful the program can be; Git, for example, while a program, is also a great system of its own, as well as someone who's responsible for handling the entire Linux kernel repository, and more - thus, I determined she was good to characterize. Finder (Mac) however, is more of a shell or part of the system, and very integrated into it; I worked this into it being a spell usable by the various Mac-tans.

Overall that's my main issue with program-tans; as they're at the same time entities of their own, they are also the base of all Sorcery (as Sorcery is essentially the extended magic ability of -tans via code) used by OS-tans. It comes down to a question of who goes where.

I don't think it would be wise to disregard the Sorcery concept for program-tans, as it's the base for much parts of several -tans (Linux and other Open -tans, for example) - it'll be hard to come with the end verdict, but that's that.

Also Hardware-tans have the same level (though not the same kind) of rudimentary grasp of Code as humans - only in more extreme cases can they manage to access any Closed space unaided, and their presence can normally cause disturbances on quite high levels within the field. I am in a bit of a bind in this spot, however, as it deals with the matter of the source of Code and power among OS-tans.

Viewpoint 1: A piece of hardware is the material focal point for any and all execution of code by any OS-tan. The amount of magic/code/whatever power accessible by one single OS-tan should thus in the defining norm be roughly equivalent to the amount of hardware under his/her control - that is, computers with the OS in question installed, and the raw processing power they can provide. For example, while the various Windows versions have dominated the desktop market for just about two decades now, their actual code strength is limited by the hardware used in these lightweight machines. Linux, while not very widespread on the desktop side, controls a huge chunk of server farm through her distributions; as they are direct iterations, code relatives AND direct subordinates of hers, this supplies her with an enormous amount of raw processing power. And while the Unix empire may not be as glorious as it one was, the rise of the OSXen and the persistence of Mainframes running various Unix versions ensures her a good deal of raw strength as well.
This also gives a good way of handling the rise and fall of various -tans; as the amount of hardware under their control diminishes, so does their power, with eventual lapses of sanity or physical ability to follow depending on the scope of their fall, with an eventual death possible as a result of having no hardware or direct descendants/subordinates to draw power from at all. As an example, OpenVMS will keep going even if her own hardware base ceases to exist, as long as NT-based Windows-tans are present and in possession of enough power to keep her alive; at the moment the prevalence of NT-based Windowses gives her the ability to tap into their enormous code power pool, resulting in her being a great deal more powerful than one would expect from a wanderer of her state. NT herself will likely never gain much power as a result of her being a rather inconspicuous character in the shadow of various Windows versions (XP, Vista, 7 and so on), leaving her almost in a subordinate state of the hierarchy despite being higher in the chain of Code; in addition, as she is the link binding OpenVMS to the Windows power pool, and since she is not in the top of that hierarchy (she is a direct descendant of OpenVMS, not an original piece of code - compare Linux and Unix, with the former being semi-related but not directly related in code and such, thus granting no power sharing) what power she can draw herself is only a small branch on the trunk supplied to OpenVMS through her own channel.

The main problem I see with this is with -tans who don't follow this pattern of power-in-accordance or have other kinds of powers; I dunno the amount of these, however, but I think they are sort of few in number atm. Keep in mind that this "power level" scale only pays mind to actual usage of code/magic - 95-tan, for example, while not being as powerful in spell usage as she was during the height of the 90's OS wars, she still keeps her physical prowess and swordsmanship; as this is a natural ability that she has by "birthright" so to speak, one that was hardcoded into her very matter as she was created, and not a spell.

WALL OF TEXT. What say you, /osc/?

It's just that, I don't see too much conflict with this "over-detailed" system with any of the works produced here, or even the old originals from Futaba. Might as well define everything that's being used, no? SCIENCE likes it that way.

And Emulation is the equivalent of necromancy; it provides a -tan, deceased or not, with code/life force from another entity. Thus, an OSXen in Windows Bootcamp supplies power to the Windows power pool; while an emulation of old, deceased OSes provide them with temporary life force. Depending on the scope of emulation (actual installation on a virtual space VS plain ISO-booting and whatnot) she may be able to keep some of that power and keep running in a low state even when emulation is not in progress; or be forced into a "standby" mode. The former alternative also gives for healthier-looking corpses.

True revival, however, needs the complete reconstruction of the original hardware or somehow else giving a -tan a code pool all of her own.

In my view of OS-tan death, there are 4 stages.
1: Operation death - there are no longer any pieces of hardware running the OS. This gives the -tan a few moments to say some last words (length dependent on the size of the final code pool and the maintenance/power level needed to sustain her equipment), whereafter she goes into a "dormant state" resembling a coma. This of course under the condition that any external power supplies have also kicked the bucket; a -tan with still-operative direct descendants, subordinates or a sizeable code pool available through other means (in possession of a family company, for example, that is willing to supply the -tan with power) will not cease operation until these link(s) are gone.

2: Hardware death - there are no longer any hardware in good enough condition to run the OS. This marks a deepening of the "dormant state", where only porting can give the -tan a true return to life.

3: Software death - there are no longer any pieces of the original installation mediums left, and the -tan starts to effectively decay into bits of code.

4: Code death - the final stage of the deceased, when all vital pieces of code (source or not) is gone from existence. This is effectively the final death of a -tan.


Chocofreak13

Quote from: I
wow, i actually had to take notes on this. oh lawls.

let's see...

--the apple forbidden from mating with other -tans lends itself a romeo x juliet air in the case of emuii-tan and kyourou-kun, due to the fact that from fandom (and the comic i transcribed myself) has kyourou hopelessly in love with emuii-tan, and emuii returning his feelings to some extent. this makes for a very interesting story, no? :3 (although the only one i would think would be truely angry in the windows sect would be 95-tan; as for the mac side i figure the only ones NOT angry with this pairing would be sonata, apple II, apple I (may she rest in peace), and maybe system1-tan.)

--hardware morality makes sense. it also lends itself to that idea i had about the IBM army--lots of strapping young hardware-kuns charging off to battle with the other hardware types, thus ending their lifespan, leading to only a few straggling survivors in their old age.
-tragedy may be a good motif for this, although WE'D have to make up the parings, as there aren't exactly alot of canon hardware-tans/kuns.
-technically they are the oldest, as TECHNICALLY the first computer was created by ada lovelace, which was pure hardware. we could consider them "the original race", or something. they should at least garner some respect.
-i was going to consider firmware part of the limited "magics" held by the hardware species, but i like your idea MUCH better.

--the os-tans may be the most complex of the species to plan, as most of it is already planned out for us. this SEEMS simpler, but in reality this actually binds us to the set given.
-nej, i like your idea about the mac "famigilia". this is pretty much how i've thought of the macs, so only "elite" software seems to fit this image. i also like the idea of the youngsters being "rebellious", though OSX-tan would probably be a little more traditional than OSX-kun or the OS9 set. (the italian flair also goes with the romeo/juliet thing i mentioned earlier ;D )
-i am wondering what sort of "magics" you meant, considering the software are a class in themselves. explain?
-the windows seem like they would be more laid-back, as with the usual setting for the windows houses, relaxed, japanese, and cozy. they would welcome even unlicenced software with open arms, though vista would ask permission first. xD
-the linux, considering they are rather scattered, seem like they'd be more like an underground group, having secret meetings, like communists in the 1950's. xD they would probably cater to mainly open-source/unlicenced software, and be a bit more stealthy in their dealings. they probably would not get along with other clans, if they got along with themselves.
-OSes are not immortal, if i remember right. i once read that apple 1 died, as did a few others. they might have impressive longevity, maybe even not able to succumb to natural causes (what IS "natural" for an OS??), but they CAN die.

--i like the idea of firmware-tans. i have an art book that reminds me of something that bella said about them:
Quote from: Bella
ITS CRAZY :V WE SHOULD HAVE A PICNIC AT LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE SOMETIME OR SOMETHING. :V

no, not that, though we should. xD
Quote from: Bella
they'd probably be the lowest class, but one of the largest, since firmware is used in almost EVERYTHING electronic.

the art book is called "Manga Matrix" (i reccomend it, $25), one of it's purposes is to help people plan stories. one of the samples i really took a shine to (actually helped inspire a potential comic of mine) and i think it would fit here.
the pages are here, here, and here (the third one is just the unreadable text on #2.). I think the stateless people from the story would describe the firmware-tans quite well. (on another note, like the statless people, they are connected with the upper-class whether they like it or not [in this case the hardware-tans].)

--software-tans would most likely be of a lower class than the rest (but not as low as firmware). They are dependent upon OSes for work and purpose, for without OSes, they (technically) do not exist (though with disk-burning, this is subject to speculation). There would likely be 3 classes: Licenced, Unlicenced, and Freeware. (i suppose piracy could come into play as a 4th class, but me thinks they would fall under "unlicenced".) I'm thinking that Certian OSes would only hire certian Software; i'm thinking Mac would mainly hire Licenced (and very few at that), Windows would be equal-oppertunity, and Linux would cater mostly to Freeware.
-Software reminds me of a sort of assistant to OSes, like a boss and secratary (in certian cases).
-Applications and gadgets should fall under this catagory.
-Would malware fall under this catagory?

--I like the evolution theory for Vintage-tans, although this is slightly degrading in addition to being true; if we compare them to evolution, then as the "modern" OSes represent the evolutionary stage of today, Vintage would be farther down on the chain, as early homo sapiens, or perhaps even closer to our primate cousins.

--I vote we start a seperate species for Filetypes, as they are not software, not OS, and not anything else. i can't figure out where to place them, unless we start counting them as the "cells" of the OS, as they make up the OS itself.

also, i made a prototype hierarchy chart based on the one in the book.


hmm, i think i'm done with my arguements.

very cool, thanks aurora-sama. ^^

given that the mac familt sports lisa, OSX, AND 7.5-tan, not to mention a brigade of overprotective catboys and close-minded office execs, the mafioso idea doesn't seem TOO far off.....

considering the vintages are OSes, they would probablyfall under that catagory. but there needs to be some explanations...
1. time warp
2. immortality
3. evolutionary
4. clones
5. suspended animation
6. ????
7. profit

bella: i suppose you're right about the hardware-tans, although for certian computers (and storyline purposes) having an army of clone-puters would be pretty cool.
as for os-volution, there must be SOME hints of it, whether it's a family line or OSes coming from other computers. unix to linux could be considered an os-volution.
i wonder if, for storyline purposes, viruses and malware could "kill" an OS-tan.
(ps. dost thou live in plymouth? :3)

nej: since when is this canon? WE keep the -tans alive now. which means WE make the canon stuff now.

hmm, indeed, there has to be SOME organization. i think that may be what sparked this philosophical conversation of philosophy and os-tan
(or "On the OS-tan of Species").

yes, orginization is needed. but first we need to agree on what is being organized. we have os-tans, software, and hardware as separate species; we all agree on that it seems. i like the idea of firmware and filetypes as separate species as well. does everyone agree? and what to do about vintage-tans?

after that, there's the OS-volution debate. then we could probably start some organizing, cause then we'll know what we're dealing with.

the "hybrids" from long ago could result from a time when OSes were not limited to whom they could reproduce with. An OS could have mated with a Hardware, producing the hybrid. as time moved on, it was considered "forbidden" to mate an OS and a piece of hardware. hybrids should also perhaps (for storyline purposes) be a different class, or maybe treated as outcasts in certian ways, since they are a fusion of what should (by modern standards) not be fused.
so, people, on the creation of species, i was going to move for the creation of certian catagories, but i need a question answered first:
are we considering the vintage OSes their own species or just a class of OS?
ok, so the species are still OS, Hardware, Software, Firmware, Hybrid, and Filetype? (no one has disputed me on filetypes so i'm putting it in).

i move for the creation of the following categories of species:
Hardware
Software
Firmware
Operating System
Hybrids
Filetypes

seconded?
all in favor?
i think (hybrid) deserves it's own species, since it can't fall into either "hardware" or "os".
@Nejin: logically, firmware could fall under the same assumption. but it adds an interesting element to the storyline, and to be honest, if you could find a species for them to fall under, be my guest, cause i just can't. =\

@Bella: i was proposing that we set down the basic species now, then we can start working on genus, phyus, ect.
this is more about species than -tan types.

that's like making Mac-tans and Windows-tans seperate species. they're both OSes.

this is a rare moment when i'm speaking not of the fandom.
because the OS-tans are a double-edged sword: in addition to the technical aspect, we also have the storyline to think about.

firmware is both hardware and software. this means it could fall under the hybrid category, but for STORYLINE purposes, it makes it interesting to have firmware as a category.

it feels too generalized to have it just be hardware, software, and OS as the species.

we could expand it further, but by my count, we currently have:
Hardware
Software
Firmware
OS
Hybrid
Filetype

if this still bothers you, we COULD move firmware to the hybrid folder, and just have them be a lower class than the rest (or something).
i made a small chart, but it's mainly for class purposes....



threw this together. up for debate since we haven't taken a vote yet.

and The Hobbit had plenty of detail. What's your excuse?
Quote from: Aurora Borealis
I think the hybrids should still be equals to the OSes, at least for storyline purposes.

With class, are you referring to purely a social/caste one, or a social/economic one?

social/caste, however this tends to effect economic status as well.

i was a little iffy on the hybrids, i figure that's better left to a case-by-case basis.
Quote from: Aurora Borealis
Economic status can vary a lot between the OS-tans too. Windows 1.0-tan and 2.0-tan are OS-tans, but as part of the Vintage Federation, they're by no means wealthy.

And there's the OS-tans of the Anti$oft Coalition, with their constant financial problems!

not to mention the variation of the wander sect and the linuxes. :3


anyway, we're a little OT i think.

now people, before we let our ideas loose, we need somewhre fr them to go. nej is right that we need a little organization or else we end up with little moar than random assortment of buttcheeks and waffle iron.

who's cool with the species?
=\

nice? it's a little confusing since i thought we agreed that applications were falling under the same catagory as software. drivers, technically, might as well, or maybe under filetypes.

all of the hardware related stuff (processors, chips, ect.) would probably fall under hardware as a catch-all.
stew: well, you're a contributing member of society, i don't see why you shouldn't have a say.

kiso: we are moving for the basic creation of the catagories i mentioned earlier, not evolution.

in case anyone forgot, they were:
hardware
software
firmware
OS
hybrid
filetype


so far that's 5 yays, 0 nays. aurora has yet to vote.
i believe we clarified that vintage will be a catagory of OS (or hybrid, depending on the circumstance).

alright. so we've established that the following species exist:
Hardware
Software
Firmware
OS
Hybrid
Filetype


shall we move on to classes? :3
alrighty. so for OSes, we have:

Mac
Windows
Vintage
Linux
Other

any others?
good, good. ^^
i'm liking bella's sub-species of OSes, any other OS types anyone would like to add in? (of course we could debate for years over the numerous OSes in existance and whether or not to put them in.)

i'd like to add "others" to the OS list to cover any loose ends. :\ anyone opposed?
that's pretty much what i was getting at; "class" actually being "family house", so we have macs, windows, ect.

and yeah, family trees are better left to later; right now everything is strewn all over like a 4-yr-old had a tantrum in our office.
alright. :3 anyone have anything else to say on OS classes? or are we good with:
Windows
Mac
Linux
Unix
DOS
Others

?
:3
Quote from: Bella
Agreed.

Also agreeing with Nej on the lineage v. family thing-- two people can be of the same tribe, culture, family, even if they don't have the same bloodline.

like adoption, or blood brothers. :3
are people cool w/ the following catagories for OS classes?
Windows
Mac
Linux
Unix
DOS
Others


ps. if there was ever an OS romeo x juliet it would be kyourou x emuii. ^^

Chocofreak13

Quote from: me
IT IS DONE.

OS-CLASSES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
WINDOWS
MAC
DOS
LINUX
UNIX
OTHERS

MOVING ON, NEXT TOPIC:
SOFTWARE CLASSES.

Application
Website
Program
Antivirus (could fall under program, so this one's up for debate)
Other (sidebar gadgets, ect)
i feel that's getting ttoo specific too quickly. i use "software" as the term because 1. it matches ^^ and 2. it's an umbrella term so we cover anything we might have missed.

the reason i am so general is so that we can gradually get more and more specific.

and i don't believe OS falls under software, due to the fact that it can run on it's own. software cannot run w/o an OS.
Quote from: NejinOniwa
An OS is software in that it's not hardware - it's code, data, information stored on some sort of hardware medium. Thus, it is software.

Not to say that I refer to OSes as software anywhere else than in technical references - I'm well off with either, although "software" is a smoother term, despite the wider spectrum.

but in this case they are their own catagory. they can survive without software; not too well, but they can, but software cannot technically "exist" without an OS to run it.
i prefer software so cover all. so we don't miss any and end up with OVER 9000 catagories.
i don't like the "applications/programs" title because it raises the question, where do websites, malware, antiviruses, sidebar apps, ect.fall?

meh. i respect your input but i don't agree with it personally. giving specific types of programs (creative, office, ect) their own catagories defeats the purpose of having a "programs" catagory. too fluffy for my taste. and having the title tailor made to application snd programs kind of throws out having websites in there, since they fall under neither description.

is any one else going to debate on this?
god, i miss a lot when i'm lazy for days on end.
let's see,

OF COURSE this was for storyline purposes. if it wasn't, it wouldn't make a lick o sense ;____;

i was going to throw sites, programs, ect into their own catagory then start breaking it down after, like domain - kingdom - phylum - class - ect ect.
(sorry if my thoughts seem a little less-than-coherent. need to get my head back to ostan...)
exactly. but if, let's say "virtual" was the domain/kingdom/whatever, we can't seem to agree on the next tier. (we've got the "OS" catagory so far, but we're stuck on "software" now, because we can't seem to agree on just what the hell that is.)
i like the "xenophobic" idea on hardware-specific computers (which means windows most certianly does NOT fit in this catagory. ^^) this would also mean that the more recent macs would be some of the first to venture outside of the family line, since it is recently discovered that mac can indeed be installed on a windows computer (monopoly no more!)

the hardware-software relationship between older OSes can really be played upon, i just realized. business partners? married couple? twins? sounds interesting :3
firmware is an essential part of the computing process--! don't treat it like a lower-class component--!


i'd like to combine the ideas of the "virtual" and "real" world for the os-tan, so that everything they do is in virtual space, but reflects the real world (basically a virtual mirror of earth), so that while they are not physically "real", they can still do the daily things they do in our world, interact with us, etc.

     -there's a comik that speaks to this quite well (kimmie66, if you'd  like to pick up a copy). in this comik, it's about 2200 on earth, and virtual reality has gotten a MASSIVE upgrade, being put into these things called lairs (comparable  to today's MMOs), in which it envelops all the senses, transporting the person to a virtual world. as the book goes on, it shows that while this process is "one step removed", theyb have found a way to remove that step, thereby virtualizing the person, turning them into data so that they may roam the internet, the lairs, computers, etc.
maybe this could be worked in somehow; perhaps the os-tan are comparable to those lairs, only in reverse: instead of the human going in, the os girls come out. (holograms?)

as for the code and programming languages, etc, i still like the idea of keeping them as seperate languages that an os-tan can learn (just like you download a new language pack for your OS). it's likely that they'd know a lot, but not all, just like when you don't have the appropriate language pack, the characters show up as "â-¯". this can lead to comedic situations, such as 95-tan not being able to understand a newer programming language (and having to ask one of her sisters for help) or ME-tan forgets to download the appropriate language pack and ends up talking to her foreign counterparts with "â-¯â-¯â-¯â-¯â-¯ ME-tan! ^^".

as for programs, it could be a case-by-case basis, which might fit, but as i see it, it could be along the lines that they have a physical form, but in terms of using them like sourcery they would disintegrate into pure code, allowing the OS-tan to manipulate them into the form/shape/spell they desire.

i still don't see the program-tan being able to exist w/o an OS.....except for DOS, which is simultaneously a program AND an OS.

i also like the idea of ancestor worship among the OS-tans, though i agree that certain houses are more likely to observe this than others (i have the feeling that the Macs might practice some form of this).

i think one of the reasons that we haven't really discussed hardware-tans/kuns in details is due to the fact that it's hard to draw the line between a certain company, model, or just -tan every single computer in existance.

one of the reasons i don't agree with your take on software, krizo, is that they've been represented in the original japanese fandom:
http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?pos=-7897
http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=17 (vocaloid counts as software)
http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?pos=-4527
http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=49
http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?pos=-1377
http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=152


oh, and i lawl'd when i found this:
http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?pos=-1205
apparantly they beat us to the OSvolution theory. xD

*dies*

*1up*

you've made excellent points nej. however:

1. you're getting too detail-specific. when i made this thread i had everyone in mind; meaning their stories and viewpoints, which means that while this system may work for you, it might not for someone else.

2. you're over-thinking it. this was a problem in the old OSvolution thread as well, since it's so easy to make everything super rich and detailed. it feels better because you're being more specific. but since this was to apply to EVERYONE, we want plain vanilla ice cream, not a banana split sundae with the works. it's best to provide the basics and let everyone else fill in what they choose. (like a tabletop RPG! ^^)

3. i thought we were discussing the OS-tan World first? ;___;

i completely agree with this.


but i say this is too specific because it conflicts with 'my' stories....which means that it might conflict with other people's stories too. i'd prefer to keep it super-basic, since someone (like myself) might have a different view on the OS-tans and they way they function. while the "code magic" thing is interesting, and a very good theory, that's not the way i laid it out in my comik, which leads me to worry that i or other artists in the future will have their work called "wrong" (as in, "you're doing it wrong!!") because they didn't follow the format we're laying out here.

oh, and, I THOUGHT WE WERE STARTING WITH OS-WORLD FIRST?? ;___;

makes sense. and aurora, the article can't be written and rewritten at the same time, lol. xD

is there any record of the 40's/50's -tans? maybe like a picture in the BR or something?
(sorry, but it feels like i have nothing to contribute at this point).

i should mention that i found a pic of XP, ME, and 2000 weeping over the grave of an outdated version of IE. (didn't edit the article, since i figured i'd better leave it to you to decide whether that's worth a mention).

btw, certain things on wikipedia are collected into series (such as the "series on capital punishment" i was reading earlier today). is there any way we could gather various pages into a series? if we could, we could separate the different theories discussed here into their respective pages and link them in a series.

also, while we're on the topic, i think that in order for an os-tan/-kun (or any sort of -tan/kun, including hardware and programs) to be declared officially "dead", it must fufill one of these two conditions:
1. there must be no userbase, whether it be in person or through emulation.
2. it was NEVER open-source, and is no longer in use (this would apply more to mainframe computers that blurred the line between hardware and software, and never made it to the net; this would render -tans like Hollerith and GENIAC dead).

if they were not to fulfill one of these, they could be considered "alive"--but just barely, depending on user base. (for instance, a REEEEALY obscure OS might survive as a zombie, a ghost, or on the brink of death).

little morbid, but i think we should have slightly stricter guidelines for 'dead' and 'alive'. :\

EDIT: ps. thanks for reviving this thread. :3

Chocofreak13

Quote from: kriz
Another thing with the talk of software, hardware and OS, I don't believe in hardware tans or software tans. The hardware is the body, the OS is the 'soul', the software is the household tools, so to speak. Like, with say, Pixelmator, your OS tan gets a paintbrush they can use :)

As for architectures like PPC and Intel for example, that's just a way of thinking. Just like how people are right brained, OS Tans can be born "Intel Brained" or "Power PC Brained". I don't like the idea of it being other languages, because then they can't understand each other. This way, they can communicate just fine, just if they switch bodies, their brains (souls?) are just confused on how to function.



Quote from: kiso
Hmm... I read through the whole first page... and the post above. I clearly understand that you people are trying to define clear categories for '-tans. So I have the following question to make:

Why is "firmware" set apart from anything?

To me (and judging by the Wikipedia article)... it would just be the software form of hardware. So it would fall under "OS" or "Software".

Hmmm... this got me thinking too much and brought me right into taxonomy. But yeah, you can use basic taxonomy to separate most of the species and evolutions through the different taxonomic ranks/categories. At least that will allow for Firmware to exist somewhere... or not... lol
If anything... I have done both and can agree with both. But then... hybrids of anything can exist and firm ware can just be it's own kingdom in between hardware and software... at least there it could better represent itself.

Hmm... I think I feel the need to create an evolution tree to represent what I have thought up so far.
I made an evolution tree!! Might explain what I was thinking later though... I have a headache that forces me to not think too much.

@Chocofreak13: f by making basic species you mean an evolution tree, I guess we will all differ in views.... just the way it is. But I guess I can vote "yes" if that means that we are going to agree on what is what. Then again, it may never be like that... unless we're talking about hardware. But when it comes to zeroes and ones... we're pretty much stuck.

I call "software" anything that's not physically tangible (OSes, Apps, Filetypes, Firmware, etc.) that is directly related to computer hardware... and you refer to software when you speak of apps/programs. Bella said that she views the different hardware parts as parts of a computer-tan's body. I share Bella's view, however, I also can view them as separate entities themselves... mainly because I've seen the illustrations on each hardware part already.

I don't know if it's just me, but if we want to move forwards with this. We actually need to agree on the really basic stuff. Then again... we could all end up arguing and just go back to drawing. I'd kinda' feel bad if something like the latter happened though.

EDIT: @stewartsage: You can vote if you want... you just need to know what we're talking about. You should also contribute... the more people that do, the more fun and random this might end up being. :D
@Chocofreak: Uhm... yeah... I forgot that I needed to write the alternative to all that I wrote there... which basically amounts to... "yes". lol

Anyways... all of those categories do exist... I still view them differently, but yes... they exist already.

@Nejin: Ditto on what Aurora said.
Well... for further expansion we'd have to look into the roots of all OSes, since many are simply versions of what currently exists. That would take reaaaally long though, and likely it will be too much of a job for few people to handle. Well... at least not without dedication.

Anyways... under Windows, should there be sub-classes for DOS and NT or not? The same could be said about the Mac-tans.

Man... this is actually the time to start making relationship/family trees... it would only make jobs easier.
Quote from: Chocofreak13
alright. :3 anyone have anything else to say on OS classes? or are we good with:
Windows
Mac
Linux
Unix
DOS
Others

?
:3

If by "Other" you mean "we'll add more classes as they come up"... then yes.
We need to be looking out a few steps ahead into the road to make sure everyone comes ready to voice their opinion.

Am I right or am I wrong on this suggestion? *is only following where OP leads... but doesn't know where to...*
Instead of using "Software" as the group class... I'd suggest using "Applications/Programs". Why? Well... "software" is too redundant for it's general group word and may as well include OSes and all that. On the other hand, "application" and/or "program" are a bit more specific in that it basically asks "what does it do?"

Anyways, the above suggestion aside... I propose the following classes:

Web - More general for both browsers (Firefox, Safari, IE, etc.), engines (Trident, WebKit, Gecko, etc.) and actual pages and their internal widgets (since these are viewed/used through the browsers). ((Programs that can access or require a web connection, but do not actually browse/render the web, should probably not be in here.))

Office - We all know this one should include stuff like MS Office, OpenOffice.org and stuff related to them.

Security - This is for malware security suites such as Norton, AVG, Security Essentials and the like.

Creative/Design - Any suite/app that allows you to create/edit images, websites, magazines, and other stuff in 2D, 3D and audio. Adobe Creative Suite, Autodesk Maya and Vocaloid (yay MikuLuka!) would be great examples of this section.

Messaging/Chat - This is where all of those programs should be, you don't view the web through them you just communicate with other people. I guess this should include both text, audio and video.

Performance/Optimization - Tools that help a computer stay in tip-top shape.

Multimedia - Media consumption applications that allow you to just view, watch and/or listen to your stuff. Windows Media Player, iTunes, Winamp, Zune player, Windows Media Center (not the actual OS, mind you), Preview (that's from Mac OS), etc.)

Hmm... I guess that should about cover all of the things that are in my folder.
Wow... I managed to forget about something... the things that I least use by the way. I guess...

Data Management - For burning disc images or creating backups. Nero would fall under this. And I guess Daemon Tools would fall under here as well since it's able to read disc images and you can emulate drives and stuff. Drive encryption also falls under this category, as well as data recovery tools. So yeah...
Quote from: Chocofreak13
EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING.

and i prefer software so cover all. so we don't miss any and end up with OVER 9000 catagories.


Uuuhh... but software is just the definition of all non-tangible assets in the technology/computer sector. I'm not going to say "change eeet nao!!11!1!!", but I did want to make the point known that using "application/programs" was more of a valid term to define these new groups (if only for a mere technicality). But like I said, I won't force change on something like that based on my personal scientific thoughts.

Now... let's carry on with the topic. And by the way, you forgot to agree/disagree with my proposed classes for the "software" group. Well... that, or I missed something on your part. ^^;


Quote from: Exa
I support Kiso's version, as it provides a more diverse classification of programs. I wonder what group would contain stuff like cd burning software, Daemon Tools and similar, as they don't seem to fit anywhere on the list. Otherwise, I like this concept.
With this new addition, I believe your classification feels complete. And considering the massive number of programs, it's not hard to miss a few by accident, and mistakes like that can be corrected. ^^
Actually, I have a different opinion about this question. I can see your problem with having too many categories. On the other hand, I do believe that even the more diverse list doesn't have uncontrollably high amount of classes. I feel that having too few categories can be just as problematic, as there would be a chance that we would end up with classes clogged up with way too many elements, which makes it harder to check through it.

Quote from: Stew
When it comes to the CDCs at least, it's more of a matter whether SCOPE-sama likes you. Hardware or OS.

Since the interaction between hardware and OS-tans would have to be pretty close I can't imagine that outside of cultural differences (DEC, CDC, IBM, etc.), there would be much tension between the Guild members. Though some of the older members might resent the upstart "Operating Systems".

Quote from: Kraus
Looks confusing and hard to understand at first glance. (read about everything on page 1) I would agree that OS-tan's are immortal and that hardware isn't but were douse programs fit in? Do they die or no?



if i remember right, we got as far as this on os-tan species and social classes:
Species:
Hardware
Software
Firmware
OS
Hybrid
Filetype

OS classes:
WINDOWS
MAC
DOS
LINUX
UNIX
OTHERS

we were moving on to software classes. :\

Chocofreak13

the os-tan world

Quote from: aurora
Something I wondered about is the location of the OS-tan world, I've never thought of it taking place in the 'real world', but rather cyberspace, to explain things like how several of the LUC members live together though they're mainly from opposite sides of the US, etc. Maybe this could be another conjecture article, like with the OS-tan species thing?

Relating to this, I'd imagine Linux-tan as being born in an isolated, rural area going with that hypothesis.

The real world theory especially confuses me because of the Binteeji Renmei, which has OS-tans from all over the US and UK, where would their faction be located? I had imagined there'd be a Windows Empire, Mac Kingdom, The Binteeji Renmei located somewhere presumably in a neutral territory, the Unix Nation (not sure if they'd be an empire anymore), etc.

I had thought of the Windows and Mac territories being neighboring... countries?

With the setting for the Windows Family, a large house with a yard seems just right, the most common depictions being a large traditional Japanese-style house.

Quote
@Aurora: batshit as it sounds, I always considered the BR to sort of.... transcend the bounds of the physical world. (Which may or may not go in hand with my theory that the BR is an OS-tan stand-in for an afterlife, not to mention the BR's semi-inspiration Haibane Renmei). Either that or it's in California, which may contain the largest collection(s) of vintage computers on the planet. -w-


Never considered that! With your first interpretation, how would others enter/leave, since the BR has its share of visitors, including the Classic Macs who are semi-retired, which fits them (especially the pre-System 6 OSes) because they're still alive and known by Mac enthusiasts (therefore still loyal to the Mac House), though the earliest versions are barely used on original hardware.

Similar analogy works for SAGE, though a wanderer, is a visitor, and is against so many odds still alive.

I'd also imagine that many deceased OS-tans, if they were to be resurrected, would settle there. Well, there's Multics. And wasn't CTSS open-sourced too?

Speaking of which, if a 'deceased' system can still be emulated, that character isn't really Deader Than Dead, are they? (i.e: Apple I and Xenix, both deceased for story purposes but the system can still be emulated)

I thought of there being countries, with a population of files, apps and the userbase, and with the OS-tans of their countries living in their capital cities. In conflicts, the Unix Wars and the OS Wars, the OS-tans would be the generals of their respective armies, though OSes would sometimes duel. (i.e: Windows 95 vs. Mac System 7)

The Binteeji Renmei would be a neutral, micro-country that might not even have a militia. Attacking them would be regarded as a crime against humanity.

The wanderer OS-tans live across the lands, mainly in the outskirts. Regardless, they would still be of higher status than file-tans, etc... That is if they don't fade into obscurity! Similar thing for the CIOST, but they are a confederation of territories owned by individual members.

But to keep things simpler, I imagine each of these countries as being small. This virtual world would be much smaller than the real world.

My theories have some similarities with bella's and Nej's, while I believe the OS-tan setting is in cyberspace and takes place in OS countries, I also see the settings as Cyberpunk+Fantasy Counterpart Cultures to each OSes hometown/region, with lots of inspiration from the real world.

I partially support the real world-based ideas, since even in my previous ideas I agreed with the cultures and settings being based on the real world, but with fantasy and cyberpunk twists. (make that 4.5/6 people who support the real world ideas?)

It being entirely based on the real world still irks me a bit, because how would the CIOST meet up when they need to in emergency, and Wanderers finding each other, and banding together or joining other factions, wherever those may be. x_x

If the current fanon is anything to go by, either way we have some sort of alternate universe full of Schizo Tech and anachronisms.

i.e: 60's OS-tans mainly dressed in Victorian fashion and followed Victorianesque ideals, many 80's OS-tans were dressed late 19th-early 20th century fashions but still used tapes and floppies as their technology, yet some also used phonographs. Some OS-tans dressed in Medieval, Byzantine, or even Roman attire combined with other fashions for the pre-60's OS-tans. Even in the 'ancient' OS-tan world, cybernetic enchancements were possible (i.e: Whirlwind being transistorized in the late 50's)


I think we don't have to agree exactly, but some agreed 'standards' to follow would be good, i.e: established characterizations. They don't need to be followed right down to the letter, otherwise that would stifle freedom for interpretations.

For the OS-tanverse, it seems the consensus is that it is an alternate, super tech-savvy, cyberpunk universe which is -at least partially- based on the real world.

It wasn't until very recently (when I started reading stewartsage's SAGE fanfics) I had given any thought to 'regular people' in the OS-tanverse, and had only imagined it being populated entirely with computer-tans, app-tans and file-tans, with the 'ancient' computer-tans being depicted as very old-fashioned to reflect how much 'simpler' and primitive those past eras of computing were. But even with the real world-based ideas, those anachronisms from older fanon are still compatible and can be explained away somehow, as Bella previously described.


Quote from: bells
I always imagined the OS-tan universe taking place in the "real world", albeit a very technologically advanced (bordering on magical) one. The LUC, for example, I imagine would have headquarters on the east and west coasts of the US, with other holdings all around the world -- while the Macs would, naturally, live in Cupertino, the Windows-tans in Redmond, etc -- the thing that sets Linux-tan, for example, so far apart is that she doesn't really have a hometown. By this reasoning she was born in Helsinki, but doesn't have a corporate HQ that she's attached to.

Sounds like a good topic for a Theory article though -- do you suppose we should sort the different theories by their "creators" or just have each one in its own section? IE, have one section call the Cyperspace Theory of OS-tans, another the Real World Geography Theory, etc...

Screw the future generations. >>;;;;

My thoughts are Nej's thoughts, almost to the letter. I support the theory that OS-tans are physical beings in the real world, in a parallel-universe sort of place where all of history is basically identical to ours... except for, you know, the anthropomorphic computers part.

For examples of said universe(s), see any of my, Nejin's or Stewart-san's stories.

Quote from: Aurora Borealis
It being entirely based on the real world still irks me a bit, because how would the CIOST meet up when they need to in emergency, and Wanderers finding each other, and banding together or joining other factions, wherever those may be. x_x


How do large groups of people congregate in the real world? How do people of similar interest run across one another? I don't think OS-tans necessarily travel by completely human means or that the OS-tanverse travel infrastructure is like our own (far more advanced I imagine), but nothing you've described is impossible.

Quote
If the current fanon is anything to go by, either way we have some sort of alternate universe full of Schizo Tech and anachronisms.


Yes. Yes it is.

Quote
i.e: 60's OS-tans mainly dressed in Victorian fashion and followed Victorianesque ideals, many 80's OS-tans were dressed late 19th-early 20th century fashions but still used tapes and floppies as their technology, yet some also used phonographs. Some OS-tans dressed in Medieval, Byzantine, or even Roman attire combined with other fashions for the pre-60's OS-tans. Even in the 'ancient' OS-tan world, cybernetic enchancements were possible (i.e: Whirlwind being transistorized in the late 50's)


The key suffix being -esque; I don't imagine that's how the rest of the world (human or OS-tan) dressed, as much as a matter of their creators fashion preferences (and of course you can draw a a parallel between the complexity of a system and the complexity of a -tan's design. Multics is very complex, therefor she wears complected gowns; while some less complex-yet-older systems wear less complected and more modern fashion).

And Whirlwind wasn't actually cybernetically enhanced - at least I don't think - I always imagined her modifications were purely biological.

My last piece of advice, when it comes to chronological matters in the OS-tan world (and all worlds really) is think nonlinearly.  And don't overthink, either. =v=

Quote from: Aurora-sama
Ahh... Now I see, and our seemingly conflicting ideas are starting to work together better. I didn't think about the anachronisms too much until like just now, probably because now there are so many 'ancient' characters with fashions of such varying time periods! ^^;


Yes, don't sweat the small stuff like fashion, I consider that a creator's prerogative and not a reflection of the technology or advancement of an OS-tan (or era) in question.

Quote from: Chozo-san
Just putting it into perspective, I'd say that to them, the virtual world is the 'real' world. They are software more or less, not matter, so that works.


This seems to be a popular theory, but it doesn't explain how or where hardware-tans or humans come into play.

(Incidentally, this was also my viewpoint on OS-tans initially; at first I considered it to be a population of OSes and software with little or no human interaction)

Quote
The alternate universe is believable to me as well as my own theory simultaneously, since there's bound to be an alternate universe that fit those criteria.


As someone who's written alt-universe OS-tan stories, I support this; alt universes are fun, cause they allow more creative freedom.

Quote
I just don't really agree with the other theories and made my own because I felt the need to rationalize it for our world. Plus I'm not a fantasy fan and therefor not a fan of magic.


I respect your theories and the right of every artist to formulate their own visions of the OS-tan universe; it would be dull if everyone had the exact same notions. And yes, no matter what consensus the majority reaches, I'll pretty much stick to my theories when I write -- as long as there's no major changes to the established characters, I really don't mind how anybody views the OS-tan universe.

Quote from: Aurora-sama
It wasn't until very recently (when I started reading stewartsage's SAGE fanfics) I had given any thought to 'regular people' in the OS-tanverse, and had only imagined it being populated entirely with computer-tans, app-tans and file-tans, with the 'ancient' computer-tans being depicted as very old-fashioned to reflect how much 'simpler' and primitive those past eras of computing were. But even with the real world-based ideas, those anachronisms from older fanon are still compatible and can be explained away somehow, as Bella previously described.


That's what I thought for a long time too; when I did my comic series, I included real-world humans involved in the computer industry too (see: cameos by Bill Joy, Ken Olsen and dmr and ken) 'mostly cause - at least to me - it makes more sense to have humans in the OS-tan universe than not, since it solves the who-created-the-OS-tans problem quite nicely.


I imagine Hardwares wouldn't be able to access this closed "Code Space" either, because, like humans, they exist solely as material beings. Your theory also explains how OS-tans can travel and congregate so easily.


Quote from: choco
in my os-tan comiket, the world isn't really discussed (of course i only have 1 issue for right now) but maybe a sort of parallel-japan? all i know is that the main house was on a large compound (large house w/ yard). the macs lived nearby (walking distance) and i imagined the NT branch of the windows house wasn't too far either (Inu-t was at the main house, but i imagined she'd live with NT-tan.)
there was also a market nearby.

@Aurora: i agree with bella about BR, but i would expand it to cover the entire OS-tan world, since the only setting we've seen for them is either unknown/unspecified or in toshiaki's house, which would be japan. :\

any sort of consensus on this? i like the idea of it being not in the physical world, cause if it was that'd just be weird. :\

i also prefer keeping the houses rather close; the houses aren't big enough to encompass entire countries so it feels weird to have them be in different countries, especially since they're fighting for the same thing. :\

now, if every faction was linux-sized, i'd agree with having them in different countries, but they're not.

maybe having the countries be almost the same as our world?
*sigh* lemme see, i like nej/bella and aurora's thoughts on the representation of the world, but i'd like them smooshed together. tastier as a sandwich people, then the condiments can blend. -w-

i still need to know everyone's thoughts on what the os-tan world IS, since we have yet to reach a concensus.

it's easier to go with "it depends on the artist", but i'd prefer if we agreed on something, so that future generations/non-artists can grasp what it is.

i think parallel earth in virtual space. what does everyone else think?

@bells/krizo: the purpose of this thread is to create a -standardized- rendition of things within the os-tan world, including the world itself. but just with the os-tans, there will always be variations:
http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=180
http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?album=30&pos=3

for those that remember the osvolution thread, we were trying only to decide on groundwork for what existed. of course, with the advent of creative license, all this can get thrown out the window. the same applies here: we are merely trying to agree on a basic standard with the knowledge that it may vary from story to story. the standard will help when discussing new additions to the os-taniverse, as well as provide a base for potential work.

also: bella, i have barely any idea who the hell you're talking about. for my sake, use the nicknames from HERE, not DA. ;v;
with the "real" people in the os-world, i think it depends on the story.

for example, with my comik, it's free standing (as in the user is never involved, this is a private saga within the os community). but with stew's story Eastern Standard Time, the interaction of "real" people is necessary.

same goes for the "cyberpunk/tech-savvy" angle. my comik is almost dated so far, given than the only reference to them being computers is their names and a brief mention of "filesharing". most actions have been on the housing complex, which resembles an older-style japanese house (quite large, several courtyards, possible 2nd house on property), and the only other actions have taken place at the market. :\ even the 4-koma series i was planning follows this format. :\

i agree with you on the general consensus, aurora, minus the cyberpunk angle (given that we're using it as an umbrella term right now).

2/6. all in favour?

"...different stories call for different aspect/interaction. trading main characters in moby dick and catcher in the rye doesn't work because their particular stories call for those particular characters (i wouldn't expect capitan ahab to complain about his roommate whistling "Song of India").
it was referencing that while it's POSSIBLE to have "real" people in an os-tan story, it's not REQUIRED.

if you'd like to add humans into your stories, that's your business and i have no objection. usually when i view the OS-tan world, it's an independent rendition of what goes through the computer's eyes. the humans created the OS, but not the OS's experiences.


Quote from: kriz
First I'll start off with where I think the world is set.
I've always believed it was sort of like KITT from Knight Rider, the OS Tan is indeed in the computer and they are aware of their surroundings, but, since a Computer is obviously not a Transformer, most things that take place will of course be virtual.
Perhaps think of the OS-tan as an AI with an avatar.
The world with the Mac house and Windows somethingsomethingorsomefin is virtual as well. Most, if not ALL computers have some sort of data output or are able to transfer items. Heck, my Macintosh SE, if configured right, can go on the internet wirelessly. With system 6. The capability for that is there.
So we've established that the world is virtual, what now?

Well, currently my OS Tan is sitting at a coffee table with a (likely) UNIX server representative as they discuss things. That's how I'm typing this message. Servers are like businesses IMO. The OS tan requests information and they just generally talk. This can be over the phone or anything else.
Travel in this world is quite fast as it's virtual, this allows you to have huge countries filled with OS tans and they are still able to be traveled to rather quickly. (depending on how well the OS tan is connected, that is).

Quote from: Chocofreak13
hmm, ok. which means i think the same way as you only with the os-tans one step removed.


though with more thought and consideration, i think i probably agree. :\

so we have 4/6 people on board for the alternate-universe-physical-os-girls theory. :\ anything to add, aurora/krizo? :3

Just putting it into perspective, I'd say that to them, the virtual world is the 'real' world. They are software more or less, not matter, so that works.

The alternate universe is believable to me as well as my own theory simultaneously, since there's bound to be an alternate universe that fit those criteria.

I just don't really agree with the other theories and made my own because I felt the need to rationalize it for our world. Plus I'm not a fantasy fan and therefor not a fan of magic.


Chocofreak13

Quote from: Nej
Using the relevant scene from Mertvaya Ruka as example, space exists in two "modes": Open and Closed. For example, while navigating through the streets of Boston, Helsinki or some other human area we have typical Open space; whilst when inside Unix-sama's base where Leopard time-warps in, it's a Closed space, impossible to enter without possessing the correct lines of code (password, if you'd like). Since most ordinary humans aren't even aware of that aspect of code in the first place, they won't even be aware of the entrance - whilst OS-tans without the code in question in their possession won't be able to get through.

This sort of "code bubble" makes it possible for OS-tans, or factions thereof, to make private areas which only a select few can access; such as the Mac House or Windows Family mansion (or Unix' secret base). While the "magical" aspect of code usage (sorcery) can be involved in different levels depending on the story, this makes most of the workings possible within a single theory's scope (which saves us the hassle of explaining things later on).
THUS: Public space and human-populated areas are Open space regardless of human security levels, unless someone used code to force it otherwise; areas accessible only by OS-tans are locked by code of various levels and thus within Closed space (lolol heisakuukan). This can be anything from a private faction enclosure to a simple meeting spot for -tans (such as the "market" used in canon works, where -tans from many factions can meet) of all kinds and factions. I believe this solves most, if not all, of our problems, no?


Quote from: C-chan
I myself compromise between both your propositions, and do picture the OS-tans living in some surreal cybernetic world which at the same time parallels our own real world.  The Windows-tans and Mac-tans live in their company-provided housing (in the Mac's case, a living breathing house), whereas most of the other OS-tans live scattered throughout the world.  In some cases they band together into their own cooperatives, such as the Vintage girls at the Binteji Renmei

You also forgot to mention that you're technically creating a comic as well, and need some sort of halfway-coherent universe in which to stick your characters in else they lose half their charm as OS personifications.  I originally loved OS-tans, not necessarily because of how they looked, but also because of all the witty technical references employed (e.g., ME-tan emptying out a recycling bin, or fragmenting a defragging job by 2K-tan, or opening a love letter to unleash worms, etc.).

Chocofreak13

-open for discussion-

Aurora Borealis

Good job digging through all of those old threads and reposting all of that stuff! There's so much stuff to discuss, I don't know where to start!

The first thing I'd probably want to discuss is going into more detail about each current and historical OS-tan faction; such as their social policies (I saw some stuff to that regard) and their history. Most of them have articles up in the wiki, but a lot of those are largely incomplete. :-/

Chocofreak13

any particular one you'd like to start with? i'm familiar with windows and mac, so for the wanderer class, BR, and others you might have to wait till bella's awake. xD

Go Up