Current RAM requirement

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

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

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Haos »

What makes you think that XP is badly coded?

nicamarvin2005
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by nicamarvin2005 »

What makes you think that XP is badly coded?
... :lol: is that a real question? let me adress this in a different way, I think ROS team could Code XP much better while keeping it XP

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

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Z98 »

Considering I know people who have worked at/do work at Microsoft, I cannot help but be a bit annoyed with this attitude of yours.

nicamarvin2005
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by nicamarvin2005 »

I cannot help but be a bit annoyed with this attitude of yours
what? Ok I'm out...

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

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by PurpleGurl »

livestrong2109 wrote::shock: Windows 95 was more stable for you than 98..? I find that really hard to believe..!

In any case it seems explore is using more memory than it really should be... almost 30mb disable explore and ROS seems to run stable on only 55mb of ram. I've got explore 95 running stable with less than 59mb in VBox with trunk. So for those of you who don't need the shell....
I should have clarified. Second Edition 98 RTM probably was more stable than 95, but 95 was more stable than fully patched 98SE. And guess what? You could take 95's Explorer.exe and maybe 2 other files to make it work, and put them in 98SE, and it was very stable. Yes, it introduced some handicaps, but it worked well. And there were users who put a whole [you-know-what] load of files from ME into 98 with lots of success. One change in ME that a lot of users hated was how they deliberately hid the command.com interface to make it look like it was not running on top of DOS. So you had to do some mods to get it to run more like 98 to let you use the command console. One kludge was to make it boot using the command.com from the recovery disk and then use autoexec.bat to load ME (like in Windows 3.1 days).

Interestingly, explorer.exe from Reactos won't run in XP and complains about a DLL not loaded that XP does not have.

"This application has failed to start because notifyhook.dll was not found. Re-installing the application may fix this problem."

Now I wonder if the reverse scenario would work (XP explorer.exe under Reactos).

Pisarz
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 9:29 am

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Pisarz »

Copy notifyhook to Windows and ROS Explorer would run. But still ROS won't run Explorer from Windows.

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

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Aeneas »

(Just for the record - I DID install and run Windows 95 on a 300 MB disk, 8MB RAM 486 machine. - Of course, it was a swap-fest.)

User avatar
EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4402
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by EmuandCo »

Why does everyone compare ROS to Win9x??! Its a difference like fire and water. Go and compare to WinNT 3.X, 4.X, 5.X and 6.X!
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

elhoir
Test Team
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:01 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by elhoir »

Haos wrote:What makes you think that XP is badly coded?
why there are so many secuity flaws, bugs and so on if not?

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

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Aeneas »

As you wish - NT 4 had 12 MB RAM requirements (usually stated as 16, because who the heck has 12 MB...). - Then again, you have to cope with more stuff than NT had to, and are using a more modern (and needs more bloated) instrumentarium.

On the other hand - I guess ReactOS is not actually "too big", esp. in comparison with other software. - I guess the point is just to establish the REAL requirement and accordingly update that. As long as it is under, say, 256 MB, I guess it'll be fine. (So as to be able to use it one day on older ex-XP-machines.)

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

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Haos »

elhoir wrote:
Haos wrote:What makes you think that XP is badly coded?
why there are so many secuity flaws, bugs and so on if not?
Can you list at least two-three?

nicamarvin2005
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:03 am

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by nicamarvin2005 »

Can you list at least two-three?
surely you jest!

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

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Haos »

I am not? Still waiting for the examples?

User avatar
Black_Fox
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Black_Fox »

We aren't skilled enough to find bugs on our own, so we can list only known and fixed, e. g. these may be what elhoir means...

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

Re: Current RAM requirement

Post by Haos »

Why are you then stating opinions on something you are not skilled enough with?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DotBot [Crawler] and 5 guests