What do we expect from ROS?

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

alexei
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:29 pm

What do we expect from ROS?

Post by alexei »

Let's imagine ROS is ready for everyday use.
What would you do with it and why?
Would you erase MS WIndows preinstalled on your new PC and install ROS?
Do you expect ROS to be faster, more reliable, more secure than MS Windows?
Do you want ROS be backward compatible with older MS Windows (starting from W2K)?
Do you expect ROS UI to change periodically to reflect changes in MS Windows?
Do you expect ROS to require security updates on a regular basis?
Do you expect ROS in some respects differ from MS Windows?
So, what do we really expect ROS to be when done?

What I would like is the OS, which (1) does not need updates to stay secure, (2) is fully configurable, (3) has stable backward-compatible UI. I'm really get pissed off each time when I see software "requires ... version of ..." Can't they just make it work on all versions and not demand (probably harmful and often heavy-weight) updates to the OS? For example, anything compiled with VC10 requires .NET 3.5 - that's disgusting. In ROS I would like having .NET 3.5 and such to be held separate from the core system and given to applications only when required.
MS keeps introducing new features and APIs to attract / please software developers and at the same time make an older versions of WIndows outdated, make end-users to update /replace their Windows (and even hardware). Some people may call it "progress", but to me it's just a hassle. Linux is even worse in this respect, but it doesn't mean we should consider this situation "normal".
Relating to ROS, it probably needs to be able to provide compatible execution environment on per-application basis and without changes in its core (if possible).

DOSGuy
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:55 pm
Contact:

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by DOSGuy »

It's possible that I would use it as my primary OS, but only if it was extremely stable, and my applications had similar performance. As a retro gamer, I would hope that it could be used to create a gaming machine that would allow me to natively play Windows games from any era. I use a Win7 x64, so I can no longer play Win16 games without running a 16- or 32-bit version of Windows in an emulator or VM. Linux users can run Win16 software in Wine, while Win64 users and ReactOS users can't. That's what I want from ReactOS to be: the Windows that runs any Windows software. I would love to be able to Microsoft that I'm uninstalling Windows to switch to a free OS that has better Windows support than the real Windows! Lewis Black once ranted, "How can Greece not be ready for the Olympics? They invented the Olympics!!!". Well... "how can Microsoft not support Windows software? They invented Windows!!!".

So, should it be faster, more reliable, and more secure than MS Windows? Sure, that would be nice. At least we won't have to waste any resources on DRM and Microsoft Genuine Advantage and all of that crap.
Backwards compatible with older MS Windows, starting from W2K? I'd prefer 3.0, if not 1.0.
Do I expect the UI to change periodically? No. I'd like to have the option to change it, but I'm not a big fan of being forced to change.
Require security updates? I can't think of any software that doesn't require periodic security updates. ReactOS may have the "Mac advantage" that no one will be specifically targeting its weaknesses, but it will have weaknesses and, if it was extremely good at copying Windows' behavior, would also inherit Windows' weaknesses. So yeah, I'm sure it will need updates.
Do I expect it to differ from MS Windows? Yes, where it makes sense. We all have a wishlist of things we'd like Windows to have.
What I would like from ReactOS is for it to be a free, lightweight Windows-compatible operating system that can run Windows software designed for any version of Windows. I'm told that Win16 support isn't going to happen, but I hope it will support software for as many versions of Windows as possible.
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article. Get free DOS, Windows and OS/2 games at RGB Classic Games.

milon
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by milon »

Currently, I use my desktop for hobby coding, online browsing, a little gaming, and ReactOS testing (VBox only so far). For me, ReactOS being ready for everyday use means I could do all those same things with it.

Would you erase MS WIndows preinstalled on your new PC and install ROS?
Either that or dual boot Win7 and ROS. I keep a separate backup of my data anyway, so if either OS crashes then it's no real loss.

Do you expect ROS to be faster, more reliable, more secure than MS Windows?
Rightly or wrongly, I view Windows as being bloated. I expect ROS to not be bloated, so by default I would expect it to be faster and more responsive. I wouldn't expect ROS to be as reliable as Windows right away, but I would come to expect it after using ROS as my main desktop OS for 6 months or a year. I would expect ROS to be more secure than Windows simply because of having a smaller (and therefore more manageable) codebase. I recognize that these expectations are unrealistic, but those would be my real expectations.

Do you want ROS be backward compatible with older MS Windows (starting from W2K)?
Absolutely. Like DOSGuy said, Win-16 would be great, but I can get along without it. There's always DosBox.

Do you expect ROS UI to change periodically to reflect changes in MS Windows?
I wouldn't mind if the user was given the option to change the UI to reflect Windows, but I would not want the change to be forced.

Do you expect ROS to require security updates on a regular basis?
I would want security updates to be rolled out as soon as they're stable and ready. Whether that means daily or monthly, I don't care. My main concern is that issues are fixed as they're discovered.

Do you expect ROS in some respects differ from MS Windows?
Of course. It's a different operating system that just aims to be compatible. As long as it's still intuitive and responsive, I don't mind any changes.

Z98
Release Engineer
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 8:16 pm
Contact:

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by Z98 »

alexei wrote:What I would like is the OS, which (1) does not need updates to stay secure, (2) is fully configurable, (3) has stable backward-compatible UI. I'm really get pissed off each time when I see software "requires ... version of ..." Can't they just make it work on all versions and not demand (probably harmful and often heavy-weight) updates to the OS? For example, anything compiled with VC10 requires .NET 3.5 - that's disgusting. In ROS I would like having .NET 3.5 and such to be held separate from the core system and given to applications only when required.
MS keeps introducing new features and APIs to attract / please software developers and at the same time make an older versions of WIndows outdated, make end-users to update /replace their Windows (and even hardware). Some people may call it "progress", but to me it's just a hassle. Linux is even worse in this respect, but it doesn't mean we should consider this situation "normal".
Relating to ROS, it probably needs to be able to provide compatible execution environment on per-application basis and without changes in its core (if possible).
Your first request is impossible. When a bug in existing code is found, the only way to fix it in deployed systems is to update the OS, whether via patches ore reinstalls is a matter of having the necessary support. Your second request is too broad, and gives a pretext for never being satisfied no matter how flexible the OS is, and thus would be ignored by any experienced developer. Your third point is disjointed. UI has nothing to do with libraries and development frameworks. Your complaints about newer applications needing newer versions of libraries and the like are also badly misplaced. Developers choose to make use of new libraries and platforms because they make our work easier by providing new functionality or easier ways of doing things. Your request that devs "just make it work on all versions" carries with it significant costs in time and resources, as developers need to figure out how to do something that may not even be supported in older libraries or platforms. Games are the most visual example. After all, good luck getting any of the visual effects you see in a modern game today without programmable shaders, which were only really added in DirectX 9. You are effectively asking that all software progress freeze so that you do not need to update your system. That's never going to happen.

Dave3434
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:14 am

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by Dave3434 »

i agree with everything as long the ui doesn't change much i tired to help out a friend with her laptop running windows 8 i couldn't even get to control panel.

mametoc
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:31 pm

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by mametoc »

(I'm desktop user.)

Run M+GUI front-end+M.A.M.E. emulator ok whit similar performance than running from XP.

Run Smplayer portable ok and watch videos consuming around the same resources than XP.

Run Firefox browser ok.*

Run Emule and Freedownloadmanager ok.*

Run Ultradefrag portable ok (if it needed).

Run Infrarecorder portable ok.

Run Format factory portable ok.

Run MC64 and mingw ok (to compile arcade emulator).

Run SumatraPDF portable ok.

Run Wincdemu portable ok.

Run Diskcleaner portable and Wise_registry_cleaner portables ok (if its needed).

Take desktop screenshos correctly whit default method: "Imp Pant" key + paste to basic app draw (mspaint etc..)


*Run 3G internet conection, drivers+app manager ok.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by PurpleGurl »

Would you erase MS WIndows preinstalled on your new PC and install ROS?
Yes, if it was compatible, reliable, and performed better. I would most certainly do so if Windows 8 was on it. If the conditions are not met, I'd try to put 7 on it if possible. Otherwise, I'd be forced to stick it out.

Do you expect ROS to be faster, more reliable, more secure than MS Windows?
Faster, sure. Reliable would be a ways off, though just as reliable would be good enough. Same for just as secure as Windows. If we can get more secure and more reliable, that is fine, but status quo is a pretty good place. I was impressed when I installed 2000, since compared to 9x, it performed a little better and lockups were rare.

Do you want ROS be backward compatible with older MS Windows (starting from W2K)?
To an extent, but not to the point it makes things less secure, less stable, much harder to program, or harm performance.

Do you expect ROS UI to change periodically to reflect changes in MS Windows?
To a point. What I'd like to see is when we reach a certain compatibility, we have a version freeze, and anyone can forever get that revision. So break it up into flavors. Once this achieves XP/2003 compatibility, then link to it for users who want to stop there, then keep adding changes for more modern Windows versions as the community demands. In other words, put convenient stopping points for legacy versions and put links to them anyone can access. The older official ones corresponding to older versions of Windows can be branched if bugs are later found or there is new code that is much better and will work with them. So you could have a ReactOS "2003" and a ReactOS "7." Not by those names of course. You could have "ReactOS Legacy," "ReactOS Ribbon," ReactOS Metro," or other names that give a notion of what it is replacing, but in ways that don't step on anyone else's rights.

Do you expect ROS to require security updates on a regular basis?
That is only a fact of life. If we become totally compatible, that means the nasties would run too. While the attack surface would be different from the start, we still might be vulnerable. Hackers, when they see we are viable, might create nasties just for us, just to prove they can do it if for no other reason. So we'd have to be vigilant. But since we are open source, then if the community of users are viable, we'd have sharp eyes looking for problems.

Do you expect ROS in some respects differ from MS Windows?
A little. I'd expect the total package to be smaller. I'd love to see less services than what are in W7 and W8, but with most of the same APIs (just more efficient structuring and less "junk" services).

So, what do we really expect ROS to be when done?
Hopefully, a lighter, faster operating system that everyone can use, that will run most of what Windows can run, perhaps run on a wider range of machines

Other comments:
I agree with most of Alexei's original comments. To help stabilize the market, we need a compiler team to make compilers that are 99% compatible to the new stuff but doesn't rely on 3rd party and Microsoft-specific libraries. Then you get the devs of other projects, even commercial ones, to use the alternative compilers.

I'd love to see a performance fork, even if a 3rd party team has to do it. Sacrifice compatibility for performance in a few places and maybe pure assembly in places and geared to newer machines. That could be a separate project and for gamers and video editors or whoever. That could be done like a service pack and not really a true fork.

I'd like ReactOS to be MORE configurable than Windows. Instead of having to install TweaksUI and similar, why not just a more powerful tweakers' control panel? Why not a place where there is something like TweaksUI, XSetup, Autoruns, and CCleaner all in one place? Then again, Windows needs something like that, and that could be another project. We need to keep the OS simple and stay focused and within our goals.

It would be nice to have a tool to split ReactOS components between drives in any way desired within reason. I nearly always reconfigure my Temp, Cookies, History, swap file, and other folders. So why not an easy way to move all read-only components to a SSD, but write or read-write to a mechanical drive? And even some redundancy in that scenario would not hurt.

I'd also like to see things such as the most common tweaks made being preconfigured as opposed to the WIndows defaults. I've seen where devs removed improvements to be more like Windows fundamentalists in areas that would not be harmed by difference. We don't need to copy their mistakes or suboptimal arrangements. The main thing is not using Windows defaults, but making Windows default settings for things possible.

Milon's comments on smaller being more secure, that is only true to a point. Windows 98 was much smaller than XP and 7, yet I remember many more popups, exploits, viruses, etc. I would hate to return to those days with 98 crashing once every day or two and it and IE 5 allowing things I didn't know about installing themselves on my PC. So whether it is 300 Mb or 2 Gb, the OS size alone is not a direct correlation to security. Hey, I got plenty of viruses under MS-DOS. There weren't that many viruses for Win 3.1, but then again, most of the writers were focusing on the underlying DOS. Then by Windows 9x, that was where we got all the worms and spyware.
Last edited by PurpleGurl on Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

tomleem
Posts: 631
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: New Hampshire of United States of America
Contact:

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by tomleem »

Having an UI that does not change much or has a very similar UI would be great. I have Windows 8 and it is really different from Windows 7. I am still trying to figure out how to install a printer since the 'start' is really different.

I want ReactOS to be able to run on netbooks and other similar sized spec'ed computers. It would be nice if something did not have a huge requirement for memory and drive space. :ugeek:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tom Lee M / BigGoofyGuy
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Aeneas
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by Aeneas »

I am assuming not an "ideal" ReactOS, but a ReactOS that could be achieved within 5 years or so (some parts already done):

What would you do with it and why?

I would use it as an office system, perhaps running custom programs from ye golden olden times (XP - seen from a future perspective) and certainly some "geeky experimental stuff" (e.g. "running command line only" for the fun of it). But I would require certainly some a) "remote control over CLI"-possibility, b) a decent office suite, c) a decent browser, with flash if possible, d) transfer to and from USB stick, e) printing.

I would not use it as a "heavy duty" machine - for that I will rely on Linux and BSD.

I doubt I would use it as a gaming platform, unless my favourite (old - from end of 90s / beginning of 2000s) games actually run.

Would you erase MS WIndows preinstalled on your new PC and install ROS?

If I were a "normal person": Most likely not (and for "normal people" not even Linux has a chance, eventhough it is a very decent group of systems). I might actually do this, though. - ReactOS would be more interesting a) for a virtual machine, if I do not want to spend an XP license, and b) particularly - for "old hardware" or a USB stick. I do not think that some octo-core monster with 32 GB RAM and 8 TB disk is really the "target hardware" of this project, at least in the near future.

Do you expect ROS to be faster, more reliable, more secure than MS Windows?

No, no, no. But it will be small, free and "available" - i.e., if a program runs on a virtualised ReactOS, you can expect doing that in 20 years, too. Like some payroll thingy, or some Visual Basic soaked custom software of some little company - ReactOS would get a lot of love there, as MOST of the worlds' software is written by amateurs: and while such VB-things may be utter crap, you will barely find a company that does not have at least a few.

Do you want ROS be backward compatible with older MS Windows (starting from W2K)?

Yes, but not to the point of being absurd. The "return on investment" must "fit". E.g. 16-bit Windows apps are not expected to work, unless maybe some hacks for some installers.

Do you expect ROS UI to change periodically to reflect changes in MS Windows?

No. The "old" windows paradigma is well understood even by a novice. This is just WHY it is so hard for MS to sell Win 8 (or for the "new Gnome", for that matter, if compared to "classic Gnome")

Do you expect ROS to require security updates on a regular basis?

"Functionality updates", including security, would be a decent fit, but are not considered imperative: Windows was not secure, and people got used to it. Your project was never "built around security", you do not really have a chance to implement it unless you do some big rewrite. Very obvious bugs should be handled, but what is possible e.g. with sethc.exe is really beyond what "normal people usually do".

Do you expect ROS in some respects differ from MS Windows?

Certainly. E.g., the multiple desktop idea etc. are great. As long as program support does not suffer in general, do what you like.

So, what do we really expect ROS to be when done?

"A decent old-style windows, less reliable, less performant, less secure, but open source and 'yours forever'." It must be practicably useable on real hardware, albeit older hardware.

tomleem
Posts: 631
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: New Hampshire of United States of America
Contact:

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by tomleem »

I like all the reason mentioned above. 8-)

I think it would be an alternative operating system to network box computer that would be used home networks and small offices where space is at a premium and low cost is a necessity. :ugeek:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Tom Lee M / BigGoofyGuy
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ne0
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 7:31 am
Location: India

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by Ne0 »

What would you do with it and why?
Browsing, Graphic design, Gaming, video editing, programming, etc.

Would you erase MS WIndows preinstalled on your new PC and install ROS?
YES, my brand new Core i7, 8GB RAM, 2GB Graphics card, computer came with windows 8 Metro UI ! (downgrading it actually costs money, and I'll probably be dead before Windows XP Copyright expires)
If it runs well, I'll install it on all my other x86 and x64 computers, now on windows 7.

Do you expect ROS to be faster, more reliable, more secure than MS Windows?
Faster - maybe
reliable - yes
security - probably yes (windows security is totally dependent on the anti-virus/anti-malware software installed, windows OS firewall does not work).

Do you want ROS be backward compatible with older MS Windows (starting from W2K)?
no need, we can install DOS as a separate OS if needed.

Do you expect ROS UI to change periodically to reflect changes in MS Windows?
NO - unnecessary UI changes, like "Metro UI" is the reason I am looking for an alternative
I'm tired of Microsoft switching and enforcing User Interfaces on it's customers; 1st the MS office 2007, then Vista, now Metro.

Do you expect ROS to require security updates on a regular basis?
no,
I expect an OS update atleast every 6-month.

Do you expect ROS in some respects differ from MS Windows?
depends on the feature

So, what do we really expect ROS to be when done?
Open Source Operating System for installing software running on win32 or win64 APIs
Flash & Shockwave compatible
NTFS compatible

kingnothing
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:08 am

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by kingnothing »

well this is my first post and i recently knew about ROS....but was a bit disappointed to know a projected started with a GUI in 2004 to find out in 2013 it is still in alpha....but still i am here that mean is love the project and looking forward to use it

1- What would you do with it and why?
As a primary OS small stable and contains less shit found in ms windows and since since linux apps and games are limited in comparison with windows and i hell hate apple( mac os and osx) unless i try hackintosh

2- Would you erase MS WIndows preinstalled on your new PC and install ROS?
hell yeah.....MS sooner or later gonna fall to and it era will die.....ms is falling badly these days with removing the support on their most used windows xp forcing customers to update and admitting windows 8 as an epic fail and announcing windows blue to fix that fail and stopped windows 7 sp2 .... so ms is just forcing customers to update and i aint ganna buy a touch screen for my desktop to use any of windows 8 i love my mouse and keyboard

3- Do you expect ROS to be faster, more reliable, more secure than MS Windows?
yeah there are lot of shit found on MS windows nobady use like you have the media player which most users directly find a substitute........the simplest way to describe ms windows is a basement the entrance is nice and clean and a good looking door but when entered it is all chaotic and dirty and dark and unclear and messy.... so yeah it will be lighter and smaller and that means less bugs more reliable...but as for secure I am guessing if runs windows app that means also viruses and malware and all of these that run on ms windows will run on ROS

4- Do you want ROS be backward compatible with older MS Windows (starting from W2K)?
since most of the apps are update to work on xp that is not that important but we can always benefit from the old project FreeWin95

5- Do you expect ROS UI to change periodically to reflect changes in MS Windows?
if it is possible to have a skin chooser to support all theme from windows xp to windows 8 that will be an advantage but that will make the system heavier plus these can always be installed later

6- Do you expect ROS to require security updates on a regular basis?
yeah but not regular basis i prefer periodic like once a month one time patch as i said above i guess all these viruses that hit ms might hit this too....

7- Do you expect ROS in some respects differ from MS Windows?
dont know

8- So, what do we really expect ROS to be when done?
ms killer...friendly user interference open source os that can run all apps without bugs and naggs

milon
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:26 pm

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by milon »

Ne0 wrote:I'm tired of Microsoft switching and enforcing User Interfaces on it's customers; 1st the MS office 2007, then Vista, now Metro.
kingnothing wrote:ms is just forcing customers to update and i aint ganna buy a touch screen for my desktop to use any of windows 8 i love my mouse and keyboard
Z98 posted a very insightful blog recently that you'll both be interested to read. It's on the main page, under Blogs. Link:
http://www.reactos.org/node/637

DOSGuy
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:55 pm
Contact:

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by DOSGuy »

kingnothing wrote:but was a bit disappointed to know a projected started with a GUI in 2004 to find out in 2013 it is still in alpha
I think it's only designated "alpha" to warn people not to try to use it as a primary operating system. In closed source development, alpha is an internal testing stage and beta is an external testing stage. For an open source project, anyone can compile from source at any point, but the developers won't usually do it for you because they aren't really looking for external testers during the alpha stage. ReactOS has a buildbot that compiles every build and encourages everyone to test each alpha release, so this is an alpha that behaves a lot like a beta. I think most projects that had achieved this level of maturity would be calling themselves beta by now if they weren't developing an operating system. Far more than any other kind of software, bugs in an operating system can destroy your data and render your computer unbootable. For alpha software, ReactOS is remarkably feature-complete, at least in terms of the growing amount of software that can be run on it.
Today entirely the maniac there is no excuse with the article. Get free DOS, Windows and OS/2 games at RGB Classic Games.

kingnothing
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:08 am

Re: What do we expect from ROS?

Post by kingnothing »

milon wrote:
Ne0 wrote:I'm tired of Microsoft switching and enforcing User Interfaces on it's customers; 1st the MS office 2007, then Vista, now Metro.
kingnothing wrote:ms is just forcing customers to update and i aint ganna buy a touch screen for my desktop to use any of windows 8 i love my mouse and keyboard
Z98 posted a very insightful blog recently that you'll both be interested to read. It's on the main page, under Blogs. Link:
http://www.reactos.org/node/637
I read the article before and reread it now well it is amazing and if you noticed it says nothing about regular customer needs
but for me as a customer i am a windows xp lover it is simple an perfect compared to vista and 7 and 8 in my opinion
i was forced to update since xp is no longer supported by ms which and new applications and games started having problems with running on xp
a couple years forward xp will no longer be able to run new application
and soon the support on vista and 7 will be be stopped
an if the future of ms is metro on desktops and laptops well i dont want it i go back to dos if i have too but never carry my desktops screen to use that will sound lam
i understand what ms needs but they can do that and keep simple interference for customer
read this article
http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-without- ... 000015538/
lovely and what customer problem with windows 8

yeah i qoute from Z98
Developers are ultimately the ones who write applications used by users whereas Microsoft develops the OS these applications run on
that means sooner or later developer will make the new applications touch screen support and if i want that i simply stick to a tab or ipod/ipad and my smartphone

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests