Page 5 of 7

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:51 pm
by Mammlouk
Most realistic idea for a subsystem would be to base it off of CXBX which is an XBOX Emulator. It shows quite a bit of promise because it doesn't need to emulate the hardware really. It's just a matter of wrapping Xbox's Directx around standard directX calls.

Re: New subsystem ideas...

Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:32 pm
by mf
uniQ wrote:
Jaix wrote:XBox
Hmm, we have a "port" to this now, so... how hard is it to go form port :arrow: subsystem?


PS. Not suggesting this be done now...

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:54 am
by tommy44306
linux is not prioritary is open source is prioritary ..which is closed source...

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:53 pm
by tonik
I request a CP/M subsystem!


Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:54 pm
by uniQ
I wonder who knows CP/M + subsystems enough to be able to do that...


Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:21 am
by solemnwarning
wtf is CP/M??????????? :? :?

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:23 am
by uniQ
Predisessor[sic] to DOS.


Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:25 am
by TiKu

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:34 am
by DocPheniX
:D omg yes! i completely forgot about cp\m.. i love that os, also i thought an AROS x86 would be way cool too

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:07 am
by MadRat
VMX and CP/M are definitely legacy systems. Not sure they have a place in a Windows world.

How about being able to run executables in at least 3 modes?

1. Win NT 5.x compatible (priority)
2. Win NT 4.0 compatible
3. Win 95 compatible

I'm sure there is some call for ME, CE, and 98SE modes if people want to go hogwild. Those three aforementioned modes cover 98% of the Windows compatibility out there. Plus its something that you would expect if you are even remotely familiar with XP anymore.

As long as the explorer window defaults avoid the spatial look and feel then everyone wins. Lists are always easier to read than icons. I'm also rather pleased with what I've seen out of ROS over the last year. Its mind boggling so much progress has been made by so few people.

Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:05 pm
by mf
Actually, if you do 98 compatibility mode you get 95 compatibility mode for free. Apps that run under 95 but not under 98 are <0.1%.

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:44 pm
by MadRat
But it may be that 1% that matters. Red Alert ran fine on 95 and puked in 98SE if I remember right.

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:40 pm
by mf
MadRat wrote:But it may be that 1% that matters. Red Alert ran fine on 95 and puked in 98SE if I remember right.
I don't remember any such limitation. Also, a "limited" 95 compatibility is easy, one which simply reports various version strings as those from win95. Most compatibility problems I've stumbled upon are simply picky apps which weren't made with future versions in mind ( if version != 4.0 die(); ).

Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:23 am
by rastilin
I would rather see more windows compatibility modes than subsystems for operating systems that NOBODY uses anymore. Are there any programs for the old systems that do not have equivalents in windows.

two main subsystems

Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:52 pm
by richard
mabye you programers could devide yourself into two groups; one works on a win 16 subsystem, the rest on the win32 one. a few others could make a version(that is very far modifyed to run fast), of dosbox hard wired into the cmd.exe, and reactos itself, to make a subsystem 4 dos.