ROS should take-over the missing Win32/Win9x flatform

[SdC]

.....
WinNT 4.1 is running a lot of services. .....
Cleaned up WinNT 4.1 for workstation use would run rings around w9x.

.....

4.1? When did I miss that one? 4.0 -> 5.0 as far as I know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT

[Blackcrack]

Hy,
aso, oky thy for info
best regards
Blacky

[oiaohm]

SdC 4.0 + about 2 years of patches. Bad habit we use to write on the disk 4.1.

[fdwhacker]

I currently use Windows 98 on a 465 MHz Celeron with 256MB of RAM. IT SUCKS!!!!! If you try to do to many things at once it will lock up (since no I-net, no updates or fixes, which might explain some of my problems) But, you do need to have some compatibility, or some layer that will translate Win9x commands into NT commands. I'm no expert, but it could probably be done. The only good thing about 9x is that it runs amazingly fast. I still play some low quality games on it, and DirectX works great (even with sucky Intel integrated graphics! )

[GoBusto]

Just which applications from the pre-NT days would you actually need? Modern programs are written for NT 5.x (2000, XP, Server 2003) or 6.x (Vista or Server 2008). Most of my old programs (from the bygone days of Windows ME) work just great on Windows XP, the sole exceptions being Doom 1+2 and Quake 1, which are easily solved through the magic of ZDoom and WinQuake. Even Commander Keen runs Just Lovely™.

I'm no expert, but it could probably be done.

It could be done by removing all of the extra security layers that the NT model has that prevent one program from ruinating the whole system, but this would rather destroy the point of having said security in the first place. Also, it would need time and attention from a member of the development team, who are already busy just working on reaching 0.4.

The only good thing about 9x is that it runs amazingly fast.

That's because it isn't slowed down by all that pesky security and stability stuff. Also, if I recall correctly, pre-NT versions of Windows can't take advantage of multi-[processor/core] machines, which would surely make them run slower than NT on multiple-processor machines.

In summary: I'd rather have a stable OS than an It-Does-Everything OS.

[fdwhacker]

I agree with you. But still, ReactOS will not be complete without support for those old programs. Windows XP, Server 2003, and Vista have support for legacy apps (though Vista's security features sometimes get in the way). If MS can do it, why can't ROS devs do it too?

I don't have any programs that I NEED that I can't live without, but some old games won't run on Win32.

And by the way, another 9x is so fast is that it directly acesses the hardware, since it is a DOS-based OS.

[GoBusto]

I agree with you. But still, ReactOS will not be complete without support for those old programs. Windows XP, Server 2003, and Vista have support for legacy apps (though Vista's security features sometimes get in the way). If Microsoft can do it, why can't ROS devs do it too?

I don't have any programs that I NEED that I can't live without, but some old games won't run on Win32.

And by the way, another 9x is so fast is that it directly acesses the hardware, since it is a DOS-based OS.

Don't worry, 9x-era programs that can be run by XP will run in ReactOS. This debate is more focussed on 9x programs that XP cannot run, such as the original Quake (ie. not WinQuake or GLQuake).

The basic issue here is that XP will not run them because of NT hardware abstraction, which makes the OS more secure. If these old programs were allowed direct access to hardware then they would be able to run... at the cost of making the rest of the OS vulnerable. Essentially, it would make more sense to dual boot a 9x system and ReactOS. You can boot into 9x to play old games and ReactOS if you want security and reliability.

What the pro-9x supporters are suggesting is that someone find a way for ReactOS to safely "semi-emulate" those 9x programs in a way that makes them usable but retains the security of the NT model. This is probably possible but would require a fair bit of time and effort from the dev team - which is not likely to happen, since ReactOS is not FreeWin95.

Of course, if any hot-shot coders have a really neat solution (and are willing to work with the dev team to implement it), feel free to speak up.

Alternately, there's always that "React98" idea someone suggested a while ago - a seperate project based on FreeDOS. But that would still mean essentially the same thing as I suggested above - dual booting ReactOS with a 9x-compatible system.

[fdwhacker]

I was actually thinking of starting a project like that and then merging the results into ReactOS.

Tell me what you think about this at fdwboy@gmail.com

[GoBusto]

I was actually thinking of starting a project like that and then merging the results into ReactOS.

Tell me what you think about this at fdwboy@gmail.com

While not an OS programmer, I can tell you that it would be rather like merging Windows and Linux - possible, maybe, but the fact remains that they are two very different operating systems, so you're going to be doing a lot of square-peg-round-hole style stuff when trying to glue ReactOS and "Open98" together.

Still, the idea of creating an independant, 9x-compatible OS for non-merging reasons is fair enough. You'll just need to hunt down enough experienced developers who want to help you. Don't expect any of the ReactOS development team to volunteer, though, since they're busy enough as it is with their NT work. Have a look around the forum for the "React98" thread - I think it was in general (Edit: I see that you have found it - here is the thread, for convenience).



...I've just realised that "Open98" sounds like some kind of golf tournament, so, if you do start a project to clone a 9x OS, don't call it that.