ReactOS And IObit Winmetro

[Angelus]

Nobody should be "condemned" to use the current type.

I'm not talking in a pejorative way. Nor I'm saying that everybody must change the way we interact with computers. If so I shouldn't be interested in projects like ReactOS. But I really think that we must to open our minds to another ways of interaction between humans & computers. Maybe ModernUI/Winmetro is a valid try... or not. Time will tell.

[Z98]

The cost of supporting older hardware and platforms goes up an exponential scale based on how old the system is. So unless a user is willing to pay that cost and accept diminished functionality because certain things are plain impossible to do on older platforms, as a developer I do not feel any obligation to complicate my workflow and build setup to accommodate older systems for applications I write today if the tools I use do not support those platforms out of the box without any tweaking on my part.

[PurpleGurl]

@Angelus:

Open-minded, sure. But don't force it on people. We should have the right to use OUR own PCs as we wish. If others want to eat a certain something, and they enjoy it, fine, but don't try to make me eat it and try to convince me it is good.

@Z98:
Yes, but nearly everything we are trying to do in ROS can be done on nearly any 32-bit x86 equipment. Personally, I'd prefer support for the newer stuff and have stuff highly optimized for it. But we don't need the artificial barriers. Like I keep saying, a lot of the reason people upgrade Windows is to run newer software that requires newer APIs they don't even need but which some compiler library requires, when the authors could use a non-Microsoft compiler and create stuff that will work on more versions of Windows without increasing requirements. And in terms of performance, the AMD socket 7 chips (made for Pentium 1 boards) actually outrun the Pentium 3 and 4 (except maybe for the latest Pentium 4's which increased the FSB and included hyperthreading or even dual core). I know how painful it is to run IE8 under XP-SP3 on a P4. I upgraded a neighbor's older machine. It used the P4 Celeron and I installed a true P4 of the fastest compatible type. That helped quite a bit, but still not as fast and smooth as I was used to. Should ROS run on that, sure; XP does. But would I prefer something better, again, the answer is yes.

[Dave3434]

by PurpleGurl » 26 Oct 2013 22:19
@Angelus:

Open-minded, sure. But don't force it on people. We should have the right to use OUR own PCs as we wish. If others want to eat a certain something, and they enjoy it, fine, but don't try to make me eat it and try to convince me it is good.

@Z98:
Yes, but nearly everything we are trying to do in ROS can be done on nearly any 32-bit x86 equipment. Personally, I'd prefer support for the newer stuff and have stuff highly optimized for it. But we don't need the artificial barriers. Like I keep saying, a lot of the reason people upgrade Windows is to run newer software that requires newer APIs they don't even need but which some compiler library requires, when the authors could use a non-Microsoft compiler and create stuff that will work on more versions of Windows without increasing requirements. And in terms of performance, the AMD socket 7 chips (made for Pentium 1 boards) actually outrun the Pentium 3 and 4 (except maybe for the latest Pentium 4's which increased the FSB and included hyperthreading or even dual core). I know how painful it is to run IE8 under XP-SP3 on a P4. I upgraded a neighbor's older machine. It used the P4 Celeron and I installed a true P4 of the fastest compatible type. That helped quite a bit, but still not as fast and smooth as I was used to. Should ROS run on that, sure; XP does. But would I prefer something better, again, the answer is yes.

i agree.

[Z98]

Having the tooling support that comes with Microsoft's toolchain is far more important to me than supporting a platform that is over a decade old. Some people might be willing to make that effort, but I personally am not. To get me to care would require paying a fairly significant premium.

[Angelus]

@Angelus:

Open-minded, sure. But don't force it on people. We should have the right to use OUR own PCs as we wish. If others want to eat a certain something, and they enjoy it, fine, but don't try to make me eat it and try to convince me it is good.
.

[...] Nor I'm saying that everybody must change the way we interact with computers [...]
[...]Maybe ModernUI/Winmetro is a valid try... or not. Time will tell.[...]

That's what I've already said... in other words. I'm not trying to convince anybody. Anyone should drawn his own conclusions.

Personally I'm too used to the current OS GUI too... and I don't know if I'll change one day in the near future.

[Dave3434]

The cost of supporting older hardware and platforms goes up an exponential scale based on how old the system is. So unless a user is willing to pay that cost and accept diminished functionality because certain things are plain impossible to do on older platforms, as a developer I do not feel any obligation to complicate my workflow and build setup to accommodate older systems for applications I write today if the tools I use do not support those platforms out of the box without any tweaking on my part.

i have to disagree, and if i have to pay someone to support my hardware then that's fine by me as long the source code remains open. besides i thought the original idea is to support systems that are made for windows xp? btw i seen laptops that are design to run windows 7, running windows xp one was an i5 asus notebook i'm sure reactos can do the same only have 4gb limit removed. so there can be two versions of reactos
1. with PAE
2. w/o PAE
all i'm saying is don't why we can't have it both ways but only time will tell back to you.

[EmuandCo]

Even with PAE we have no big use of RAM >4GB. 32 bit apps have a limit of 2GB to use and 3 GB with some toying inside the boot params and exe file headers. Only a 64 bit ROS will be a real solution.

[Z98]

As a programmer, I'm saying you can't have it both ways unless you happen to have millions of dollars ready to spend paying people to backport or reimplement new functionality on old systems. It is your choice whether you believe me or not, but what you believe is going to have no bearing on what is actually achieved.

[Dave3434]

so i guess there will be no support for older hardware?

[oldman]

All you who hate the Metro interface in Windows 8.1 may be interested in this article on Gizmag!

http://www.gizmag.com/windows-81-modern-ui/29552/

[fred02]

All you who hate the Metro interface in Windows 8.1 may be interested in this article on Gizmag

I think this phrase from the article sums up the point: "The Metro interface in Windows 8.1 makes sense on a touch-enabled device, but on a traditional computer, it's only an afterthought."
Back to the point. Just because MS want to push its MSPhone8 OS, to have their share of the mobile cake, does not mean that we all have to put up with its interface everywhere. For ones, Apple was cleverer, and did not put its iPhone interface on their desktops to "boost" the sales, because they realised that it would mean the end for their computer branch.

Otherwise the article is pretty much disappointing, except for some properties setting, they mainly suggest using third-party solutions, that have been around since 8.

[mrugiero]

so i guess there will be no support for older hardware?

There will probably be no cutting features for it. But as long as someone provides drivers (I don't know ReactOS developers view on this, but I think providing drivers is outside the scope of OS manufacturers, aside from generic ones to get the computer up and running; the hardware manufacturers or an interested third party are the ones to provide drivers, IMO) and the OS doesn't require more than your computer can give, you will probably be able to run it.

[Dave3434]

mrugiero » 29 Oct 2013 16:19

Dave3434 wrote:so i guess there will be no support for older hardware?


There will probably be no cutting features for it. But as long as someone provides drivers (I don't know ReactOS developers view on this, but I think providing drivers is outside the scope of OS manufacturers, aside from generic ones to get the computer up and running; the hardware manufacturers or an interested third party are the ones to provide drivers, IMO) and the OS doesn't require more than your computer can give, you will probably be able to run it.

thanks i read on a comment somewhere that reactos can be used on older systems i guess to some people that not the idea anymore.