Vista and issue 20...

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

nute
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:30 am

Vista and issue 20...

Post by nute » Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:11 pm

"One thing that I believe should be clarified is the goal of ReactOS.
While officially it's stated to be XP/2003 compatibility, in reality, work
is also done to make it Vista compatible."

Am I the only person who is decidedly against going out and buying
Vista?

Isn't Vista a very different beast than XP?

Shouldn't the goal of ReactOS be to achieve compatability with yesterday's
release of Windows and then branch off on it's own to compete directly?

If Microsoft made mistakes in the past, serious ones, isn't it likely that
Microsoft is still making serious software design mistakes today?

0.3.1 is unimpressive so far. Delayed perhaps, I'm probably with most people in wanting the next release already considering how problematic
0.3.1 appears to be so far. It's too bad that early predictions of a new release every 2 weeks have changed to every 2 months instead.

How about a free emulator to run ReactOS on top of Windows and/or
Linux? Done right, this emulator could ease the process of debugging
and possibly speed development. How about getting the driver
infrastructure in place using well defined emulated hardware? For
now, tell everyone who wants to run ReactOS that they have to emulate
a specific nonexistent machine. This potentially lead to there being no
difference between running ReactOS on 64bit verses 32bit machines as
long as you emulate the nonexistent architecture properly.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:02 am

2003 and XP and Vista are not that much different.
Vista has a few new security options and changed video and audio interface system.

Reactos is not exactly a copy. Its more like a rebuild. Things will be improved after the rebuild works.

Yes Microsoft is still making serious mistakes today. DRM theory that not every section of the OS needs to be able to be inspect. Hello hidden root kits or back doors. Not giving system administators the option to set the highest security on applications. Vista DRM protected programs don't except code injection from other programs. This will be handy to be able to enable on services but not able to be done unless you get program approved by Microsoft. As if every company wants to show there internal software to Microsoft. And that is just a short list.

There is already a free emulator used heavily by the developers http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/. Its for all common platforms. Its currently the most stable place to run Reactos. Developers are trying to break out to real hardware to get more useful function. Reactos goal is to be able to run straight on real hardware with real drivers. Not to run inside emulation. So testing on real hardware to find out what breaks is critical to future development. There is no point build Reactos as a os that only runs inside a emulator. Its not like emulators don't have there own bugs/quirks that don't match up to any real hardware.

You are minorly incorrect. The two week release cycle is winehq normal cycle. The plan for Reactos was a month. It has been extended to 2 months in the hope of getting vmware support back online before the next release what should bring some hardware that fails at the moment back online as well. The release cycle should get back to 1 month if not less in time.

0.3.1 was hell due to old defects connected to 100s of different places in the code base. So removing those defects went ok but blow the time line of 0.3.1 completely. So far embed was the defects it broke the complete booting of the svn trunk. It was a case could not release anything until trunk was fixed and booted.

nute
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:30 am

Vista and issue 20...

Post by nute » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:18 am

Vista isn't that different from XP???

The network stack is completely new, unless Microsoft is lying through
it's teeth about writing a new stack from scratch. I guess Microsoft
backing the whole SCO fiasco secretly got worried that someone
might point out their liberal lifting of the TCP/IP stack from one of the
BSD's for Windows 2000.

XP does not waste graphics horsepower to try and make everything 3D.
Not that different from XP? Well, XP is slow on a lot of old computers as
it is where Vista supposedly won't work on anything beyond three years
of today's cutting edge technology.

As for someone who can't work with videos they created themselves
legally on an XP system under Vista...

It's bad enough to have to call Microsoft to use your own legal copy of
Windows XP on the machine you bought it for. Imagine having to give
Microsoft the right to restrict the use of your own content to have a
reasonable experience working with it under Vista. This is Microsoft's
intention long term with Vista. Total domination over all content and
software that runs on the "new and improved" Vista.

XP and Vista are both departures from Microsoft's rhetoric about releasing a
lite version of NT. NT isn't interesting unless someone has a full free implementation
of it that is reasonably light weight. Microsoft clearly can't be trusted to get the bloat
out of NT. Why should I tax a Cadillac among computers via the OS alone? Nothing
like having DRM code ruin my experience. Never mind that I don't like having my Cadillac waste all it's horsepower trying to decide whether or not to reduce the quality
of my audio/visual experience. Never mind that Vista, unlike XP, is constantly wasting processing power to potentially ruin my audio/visual experience at any moment.
Never mind that DRM most likely has back doors and that hackers will probably
learn how to exploit these to bring whole entire computing environments based on
it down to their knees. Never mind that Microsoft is a huge fan of security through obscurity where Vista has a lot of fresh code in it.

It was amusing when the Navy decided that NT isn't appropriate for smart destroyers
because NT's software problems lead to one getting totalled. With backdoors into
Vista's DRM code, the fear should be a hostile entity taking a Vista based smart destroyer over. Imagine, when the good guys want the Vista controlled destroyer
to do something the bad guy tricks it into being dead stick via DRM hacking. Later,
the bad guy turns around and tricks the destroyer into firing a missile at say
San Diego. Another picture, your fighter jet blue screens with the message,
"You have failed to pay your license renewal to Microsoft, the flight control system
is now shutting down."

I don't want any of Vista's features. I'm not buying into it nor will anything change my mind. Vista would give too much control over my computer to Microsoft and
crackers. XP is bad enough with it's activation requirement that inconveniences
legitimate users. I don't want to be on a platform that is constantly wasting processing
resources to potentially decide not to serve me, it's owner, anymore.

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

Post by Z98 » Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:26 am

I'm going to link four articles here. Until you've read all four of them, seriously, stop bugging us with this crap.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/techne ... staKernel/

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/techne ... staKernel/

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/techne ... staKernel/

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

For that matter, all your concerns have nothing to do with the implementation of APIs, which is what we're doing. The developers have already stated dozens of times that they will not include a 3D desktop. But what the hell does that have to do with implementing compatibility?

A light NT?

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1443/IDG011 ... hinclient/

There, that's your light NT, a thin client version. And that's as far as Microsoft has ever promised on the client side. The closest thing to a light NT would be the modular design of the new server, not the client.

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/lon ... ew2_01.asp

Your complaints are centered around some of the controls MS has put into Vista. Why the hell do you think we'd implement any of it? Does making ReactOS XP compatible mean we're adding in things like WGA? No. Does making ReactOS Vista compatible mean we're implementing some of the features we don't agree with and aren't needed for compatibility? No. And what does it matter if you don't want any of Vista's features? I actually like some of what I'm seeing. The new scheduler? Sweet. The new firewall? Great. The sandboxing of IE7? A good idea. Stop just repeating the crap other people keep spouting out and look at what Vista is capable of. Whatever its flaws and and issues you have with it, there are genuinely good things in Vista beyond the eyecandy. You may not care about those features, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't benefit from their implementation in ReactOS.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:55 am

Nute I agree with Z98. Get to know the kernel more.

A lot did not change. The network stack in Vista is slower than the one is XP. If you configure them for max performance so yes its a new stack don't know if I would call it a feature. Besides the Network stack in XP should have been replaced in the NT line in 1996. Nothing to write home about fixing a security stuffed network stack. All other OS had replaced the stack by 1997. Reactos has a more modern network stack in it than XP.

Please note the BSD network stack was broken badly in 1995 all OS's using it where told to update to the latest version. Windows did not. The interfaces to the network stack in XP and Vista are the same. Only thing that is changed is the stack at long last.

Vista process management is a little better at times. Yet when you look at what linux and other systems use Vista is not even in the ball park on memory effectiveness. Linux/Unix's where always classed as the most bloated OS's when running graphical. Vista has taken that by a clear margin.

There are pluses and negatives. Not all old video cards are going to be supported by Vista. Best option from a Reactos point of view long term is support both driver styles. So can load either XP video drivers or Vista video drivers. Better hardware compatibility that way.

Advantage of open source NT like os is that it can cherry picking. Ie take the parts of vista that give everyone the best advantages. Even have two incompatible versions if needed sharing the same code base.

nute
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:30 am

Vista and issue 20...

Post by nute » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:56 am

So we are going to have incompatible implementations of what Vista offers
that is so critically important, whatever that is...

You say that Linux is inefficient graphically? Have you tried using a decent well supported video card and puppylinux lately? Never mind that you can replace X
with a different gui or no gui at all if you want to. Trying running a useful Windows
system off a 200 meg CD-R without using a hard drive.

Signed drivers, are these going to be usable in a Vista compatible
( assuming that's even possible within any reasonable time frame )
system? I don't think Microsoft particularly wants it's software affair
with the motion picture association of America marginalized. There
is less and less money in selling an operating system, but if you
can reduce access and sell keys...

So is Microsoft saying that Vista is going to be the last and best version of
Windows yet? After all, wasn't XP supposed to be the best?

My fears are unwarranted? Are you sure Z89 that you aren't just saying that
because it's what you want to believe?

I think remaining driver compatible is going to get harder where I'll be very surprised
if I'm mistaken. ReactOS in my opinion needs to branch off after achieving XP compatibility. A better implementation of XP seems more interesting to me than
Vista anyways.

Haos
Test Team
Posts: 2954
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:42 am
Contact:

Post by Haos » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:22 am

I think you should read a bit of Alex Ionescu opinions on NT. Currently, the best and fastest kernel is NT 5.2 - from Win2003 SP1, which is approx. 30% faster than XP kernel (5.1). Core of this kernel was also used in Vista (NT 6.0).

Why is then Vista performance lower than XP? Mainly because of services overload, PMP, hardcoded DRM implementation, built in AES encryption, constant driver-state polling, and many other "great features" that were created in mind to limit the Vista users in the name of "security".

The biggest threat to security is not a buggy OS, but a user that doesnt know a thing about security. Human is in the end the weakest link.

MS Vista is just a step in wrong direction. They try to protect a user from himself. This is a no-exit turn, just a self-supporting spiral of additional security features, that are in time crackable, as Alex proved with PMP in DRM...

I think that ReactOS should acquire all the best things in NT systems, just avoid the MS mistakes. This will guarantee ROS system success.

superppl
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:45 am

Post by superppl » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:27 am

oiaohm wrote:Linux/Unix's where always classed as the most bloated OS's when running graphical.
Can you explain your reasoning behind this statement? I'll admit I'm not familiar with Unix's ui, but linux can be run graphically on a pre-ancient processor with 32 mb system ram. Maybe by bloated your talking about Gnome, but blackbox is anything but bloated.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:16 pm

Superppl I don't class blackbox as a new user friendly interface.

There are only 3 desktop systems heavily used Linux/Unix KDE GNOME and XFCE.

I should have included the word Graphical Desktop. Linux/Unixs had the title of the bloated graplical desktop. Vista has taken the title. Yes there are lighter weight solutions. But you try to tell a person hooked on KDE or Gnome to use blackbox they are not movable. By year 2000 the heaviest graphical desktops on linux had crossed the 256 Megs of ram.

Since then 256MB became the upper limit of linux desktops. Question is why did Microsoft fail to work to that limit.

Radhad
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:09 pm
Contact:

Post by Radhad » Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:52 pm

Microsoft isn't interested in developing an OS which needs spare ressources. They only implement features of features which even not everyone needs, but they are included, if u want or not. At some points you can choose what should installed, but this is only for some applications...

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

Post by Z98 » Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:18 pm

Nute, so far none of your concerns have had anything to do with what ReactOS would do. You keep going back to the control schemes MS has incorporated into Vista, but again I ask, what the hell does that have to do with ReactOS? Do we need any of those controls to remain compatible? No. And what the hell are you talking about, incompatible implementations? What's going to be incompatible? Give us something concrete or stop throwing random statements around.

Did you even ready any of the articles I linked to? Are you even listening to yourself? Cause so far you've made absolutely no sense. You might know what you're trying to say, but we sure as hell don't. Also, what does signed drivers have to do with anything? Signed drivers are used by Windows to see if Microsoft certified that driver to work well, not to lock that driver in any way.

Your fears have absolutely nothing to do with ReactOS, you're ranting about Vista. You keep making assumptions about what the developers will do to make ReactOS Vista compatible, and you keep making assumptions on what it takes to make something compatible. ReactOS implements an interface so that Windows applications and drivers can communicate. It gives programs what they expect to find and that's about it. While that is an oversimplification of the actual work being done, that's the basic objective.

nute
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:30 am

Vista and issue 20...

Post by nute » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:31 pm

Time spent figuring out what to implement that is in Vista is time wasted.

Z89, who appointed you to the position of thread cop?

The time is especially wasted if the whole point of Vista is to protect people from
themselves and Vista is, as Ionescu supposedly commented,
"a step in the wrong direction."

Time has been wasted on Vista by the ReactOS developers. Porting the
ReactOS development environment to it is a prime example of squandered
resources. Why was the developement environment for ReactOS ported
to Vista?

If Vista's main features are heavy weight processes that keep memory full
and implement the whims of the motion picture association of America, why
should any ReactOS developer pay any attention to it at all? Sounds to me
like a study of Windows 2003 will benefit developers more.

Vista isn't a version of Windows that has succeeded, it just came out for
crying out loud. It could fail, especially if ReactOS can stabilize soon enough
to challenge it.

Z89, why are you defending the mention of Vista in issue 20?

Who should be going to Vista if there are a lot of driver and performance problems?
If a 30% faster kernel than what XP has underpins a system that is slower overall
despite being run on faster hardware, then Vista is despeciable.

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

Post by Z98 » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:58 pm

Who appointed me as a mod? I believe that'd be GedMurphy. I also help with maintenance of the website contents and dealing with issues people have with certain pages. Frik85 was the one who granted me permissions on that front. Why am I defending the article? I wrote the damn thing, and you're misrepresenting my statement.

Again, you're missing the entire point. Vista has added new APIs to what was already in XP and 2003. If we want to run a program designed for Vista, we need those APIs implemented. If a program wants to take advantage of a specific feature in Vista, we'd need it. For example, a change in the scheduling procedure was designed to better ensure smoothness of video playback. Certain videos are very high resolution and require a bit more processing power than others. On XP machines, they're likely to be choppy because of how the scheduler worked before. In Vista, the scheduler was tweaked to ensure that any program that plays video can take advantage of a new setting/label so that the scheduler will allocate resources better to ensure smooth playback. Is that DRM? No. That's literally a change to try to make user experiences better. Call it wasteful, but I've dealt with very high resolution video which got choppy on XP because not enough processor time was allocated to the video player. Specifically, one of the C&C3 trailers. And if I'm watching a video, I want the playback to be smooth.

Did you actually read the article about Vista memory usage, or did you just look at the title and decide you knew what the author was talking about? Those changes were specifically designed to make the system more responsive to users. But again, the new memory management methodology is not needed for Vista compatibility. I pointed it out as an example of how some of the assumptions about Vista are wrong, such as how it eats up resources for no reason.

List Vista's features. Seriously. List the features you object to, all of them. Then we can get somewhere by either saying whether they're needed for compatibility or whether we can implement something better. So far, you've just repeated the same negativity that's being spewed around the net but offer no specifics.

Why was the build environment ported to Vista? Oh I don't know, maybe because some of the devs use Vista? I know Alex has a Vista machine at least, and I know the other newsletter writer also has a Vista machine. The simple fact is, the world is shifting over to Vista. There are some fundamental changes within it which will break certain programs. There will no doubt be stranglers, but eventually the only Windows version you can get on new machines will be Vista. And most of the developers are using their home systems to work on ReactOS. When they update their machines, what do you think they'll get? Probably Vista. ReactOS will not be ready for quite some time, so those of us who don't care about Linux will continue to use whatever Windows version is out there.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:59 pm

Reactos build env is based on Gcc and mingw in places.

Vista support in that is nothing odd. gcc.gnu.org was already work on it. ros build env used some of the documented work arounds. Future versions will not need work around since vista support will be built into gcc. It only fair that Reactos returns a little bit of development time to a project Rectos has depended on.

Nute you don't seem to have the concept that Reactos can support Vista apps and drivers yet be completely different in performance specs.

nute
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:30 am

Post by nute » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:59 pm

Google: Is the world going to Vista?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36653

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130007/article.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12888 ... ticle.html

http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?optio ... ew&id=2452

This following site is interesting for what it doesn't say:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/55422.html






Google: Can Vista do anything that XP can't?

http://apcmag.com/5049/10_reasons_not_to_get_vista

http://apcmag.com/5082/10_reasons_you_should_get_vista


Do you need Vista for your Mac book???

http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_Wont ... 1137003330


Can a rootkit be certified for Vista???

http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=38833


Well, this appears to be to the closest to a list of what's new that I've found:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/wind ... -software/


Why did this plug for the Mac pop up?
http://www.connectedhomemag.com/HomeOff ... leID=49259


Wow, the Vista is bad site:
http://badvista.fsf.org/blog/wanted-one ... y-no-vista


Well, I'll throw this why you shouldn't buy Vista in just for fun:
http://www.pcworld.com/printable/articl ... table.html






Concerning Alex Ionescu's copy of Vista, all my googling so far suggests strongly
that he should demand a refund and move to something else. It should not be
promoted by the ReactOS community judging by what my google research has
revealed on the subject so far. ReactOS by merit of not having DRM will be
much faster. It's not just DRM that is a problem though.

I have run into an awful lot of move to Linux or move to Mac comments.

As far as the additional features of Vista over XP. Well, I looks like there is no single
version of Vista that has all of Vista's features where having more than two releases to pick from seems incredibly obnoxious. Oh yeah, Microsoft is already trying to get a service pack out. Never mind that Vista, despite the release, isn't a completed product yet.

As far as new API's, are we talking about DirectX 10? If the public will boycott DirectX
10 sufficiently, it won't be necessary to implement a binary compatable alternative. I
guess there aren't very many programs out that need DirectX 10 yet.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yeti [Bot] and 3 guests