`  ==Proposal of changing name and structure of this page ==  I propose to change this page and show in it only reference links to various comparison charts, because it fails to show (as stated in the title):  [Quote] The table only includes systems that are widely used and currently available. Due to the large number and variety of available Linux distributions, all of these operating systems are grouped under a single entry in these tables. [End quote]  It could have been called ``Comparison table of OSes recent than 5 years``, but it still presents MacOS and not only Mac OS X, that is the current selling version. (For example Windows'95 and windows'98 are both canceled from the table, and only Windows ME is shown. And it is correct. because both 9x versions are discontinued from market longer than 5 years.)  OS/2 is discontinued, and IBM plans to release it Open Source, but it is still on the table.  Linux OSes are shown apart. Their invoice is no longer (?) necessary.  It lacks of OSes still on the market, such as AmigaOS, which recently started also 2 split versions, AROS and MorphOS (and also MorphOS it is currently on the market). [I wrote AmigaOS invoice in the table and I planned to insert MorphOS later].  It lacks of very interesting OSes currently on the market such as RTOS (Real Time Operating Systems), which major representative is QNX.  Also it could have been called ``Comparison Table of Operating Systems with a million or larger userbase``, but then, FreeBSD and Solaris are far from reaching this record of installed releases.   So I propose to create multiple pages of comparison charts, and this page pointing with respective links to each of them (Historical chart ones, OSes actually on the market, Linux Only, etcetera).  But one chart amongst the others must be a very extensive comparison table showing all existing OSes, present and past ones, to be of reference for all readers, and mainly students and scholars.  Criticisms and advices are welcome.  Insert your Sign and say why, if you agree or refuse to change this page.      [Whoops. Sorry. I am Raffaele_Megabyte, and I failed to log, becase I reconnected internet after a brief pause]  : In my opinion the tables should list OSes that are widely used. However, use isn't the same as number of installed systems; that number just boosts desktop operating systems out of proportion. If, for example, a Solaris system runs an application server used by 100 users, that would really have to count as 100 users, not just one. A good measure might be how often an OS or services running on an OS are directly or indirectly used by how many users. Or to put it another way, the amount of ``real work`` done using that OS. (Of course this cannot really be measured, only estimated). : Basically I'm all for including OSes like QNX and similar systems, as right now the embedded operating systems are very under-represented. However, if we were to go down that road all the way, then we'd have to start including e.g. Symbian OS or Windows CE, too, and there isn't really much point in comparing e.g. Symbian OS to Solaris. : So if there was to be a split at all, I'd split it by target system type, i.e. server OSes, workstation/desktop OSes, embedded/realtime OSes. With that kind of split, many systems could be clearly assigned to one of the types, instead of having to maintain the same data multiple times. Also, splitting into multiple tables doesn't necessarily mean splitting into multiple articles. For example, it would be possible to simply have one section per target system type. : In either case, I'm very much against doing this kind of change in the ``reorganize first, fix later`` style, since a lot of changes tend to stop after the ``reorganize`` phase and never get around to actually filling in all the new content (E.g. I've seen a fair amount of people who insist that OS xyz has to be in the tables, but then can't actually be bothered to add more than a sketchy version of the ``general information`` data.) : Instead, I suggest you create the reorganized version as a page in your user namespace, and then post a link here for discussion.   `