New Subsystem Ideas

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat » Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:54 pm

If you really want WIN16 then run VM Ware and Win3.x on it.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

A-v-S
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: BAEK CITY (Beek, Limburg, The Netherlands, Europe, Earth)
Contact:

Post by A-v-S » Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:32 pm

Yes, you can also install DOS+Win3.11 in an other partition and dual boot ir :P
But it doesn't look nice, you need microsoft windows ...
ANd if you want to use Open Source OS, that is an option.

But better get WIndows 32 bit support working first, after that, make the windows 16-bot and DOS subsystems.
"you laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same"

http://www.il.fontys.nl/~andre

Trismegistos
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Milano

subsystem

Post by Trismegistos » Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:45 pm

According to me ReactOS need the subsystem:

1) Win98;
2) FreeDOS;
3) POSIX compatible (we don't need to run the same binary of linux, we can recompile it from sources);
4) GNUStep API (to have a MacOS X/Cocoa compatible API);
5) BeOS API.

using dotgnu or mono we can have .net, and we can install a Java VM to have java compatibility. In future someone can implement a javavm as a subsystem.

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat » Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:41 am

That list is fine and dandy, but I'm pretty sure the goal of ROS is to be compatible with Windows NT4 & up. Alot of those ideas are stuff for a Windows system in general and should, if done in open source model, work equally well in Windows or ROS.

The main reason Win95 and Win98 get thrown around is because of the emulation layer for them built into WinXP.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

Elledan
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Elledan » Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:57 am

MadRat wrote: The main reason Win95 and Win98 get thrown around is because of the emulation layer for them built into WinXP.
Even Win2k came with its version of this emulation layer, although it wasn't installed by default.

There are many (older) applications and games which refuse to work on an NT-based OS, which is why Win9x-compatibility, together with Win16-compatibility, should be next after NT-compatibility.

A-v-S
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: BAEK CITY (Beek, Limburg, The Netherlands, Europe, Earth)
Contact:

Post by A-v-S » Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:59 pm

Win9x and NT are both Win32.
Isn't the emulation only version faking.
The program asks the windows type, and if it says NT.
If a program only runs om 9x. it asks what windows type is this,
if NT then display error message, something like that.
( i once wrote a program to detect the windows version and type

http://home.hetnet.nl/~andre_van_schoub ... detnew.rar )

So i don't think that is really a new subsystem.

But
WIN16
DOS

i think they should be implented for full WIndows compatibility

POSIX
BeOS
SkyOS

Are nice too, but later.
"you laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same"

http://www.il.fontys.nl/~andre

TiKu
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Unterföhring, Germany
Contact:

Post by TiKu » Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:14 pm

A-v-S wrote:Win9x and NT are both Win32.
Isn't the emulation only version faking.
No, some API methods behave different between Windows 9x and NT. There're also differences between Windows 2000 and XP or Windows 98 and Me.

Again, I don't see any real need for a DOS or Win16 subsystem. Apps that would need it, are very rare. And they'll be even more rare by the time ReactOS' DOS/Win16 subsystems would be ready.
IMHO ReactOS should look forward and try to be compatible with the latest version of Windows instead of wasting time with subsystems that have no use for let's say 90% of all ReactOS users.

Harteex
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Harteex » Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:03 pm

Again, I hope there will be DOS and/or Win16 support sometime in the future. I have a lot of old nice classic games I still wish to be able to play.

A-v-S
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: BAEK CITY (Beek, Limburg, The Netherlands, Europe, Earth)
Contact:

Post by A-v-S » Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:07 pm

me too.
"you laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same"

http://www.il.fontys.nl/~andre

Pentiumforever
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:47 pm
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Contact:

Post by Pentiumforever » Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:29 am

I think for dos are now a lot of programms and games in work when they run to 100% (with sound!) under ReactOS it will be a very great message!

A-v-S
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:37 pm
Location: BAEK CITY (Beek, Limburg, The Netherlands, Europe, Earth)
Contact:

Post by A-v-S » Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:11 am

I think, we are making a windows clone,
so i think, after windows32 support is finisched,
windows16 should be added first before adding
a subsystem microsoft windows doesn't support.
(and DOS too)
"you laugh at me because I'm different, I laugh at you because you're all the same"

http://www.il.fontys.nl/~andre

mjs
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:03 pm

Post by mjs » Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:07 am

My wishlist is:

1. POSIX
- may allow us to use many (*nix-only) applications

2. Win16
- most of it should be quite easy to implement, because it's almost a stripped down Win32 API (only ANSI functions) + using 16 bit types
EDIT: - The most difficult part would be the implementation of 286 PM.

3. DOS
- RM implementation would be the hardest part

4. OS/2
- would be nice *g* because it was supported up to Win2K

Regards,
Mark

cyborg
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:27 pm

Post by cyborg » Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:17 pm

well besides: Win32 and Win64, which is clear

1. POSIX Layer (this would allow *nix programs to compile and run natively. So this is really a good idea, because reactos would have a LOT of software to use then)
2. internal X Server Layer for using X. oh yeah. THAT would be a blast.
3. full support for FREEDOS. which shouldnt be a great deal. freedos runs under a great variety of OSes. with posix and X support it could be compiled even under them.
4. Java Subsystem. Great thing.
5. all the others.

Why POSIX is so important? because it would make a lot of things easier to port. with an X abstraction layer and a POSIX layer, reactos would open doors for any *NIX, BSD, Linux and so on.
Win16 is nice, but... it should be lower priority. why? because most of win16 progs are ported to win32 already. most of win16 is included in win32 too. most of win16 would run on a freedos box with win311 at high speeds anyway.

addition: some of the subsystems can be more external, like win16 which can be handled by a dll like ros16api.dll or something like that. the Xserver layer too, however integrating it into the main GUI a little bit is cool.
but the POSIX layer, which in my eyes is the most important of all, should be very low level to have a good speed,

addition 2: i hope ros already develops very modulated. if win32 api is modulated well, ros could be compiled for 64bit too and still have option to run win32 with good speed.

Floyd
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:45 am
Location: The frozen part of the USA

Post by Floyd » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:09 pm

well, obviously win32 and win64 are essential

but:
1. Win16/DOS - installers often use 16 bit code. MS themselves are having to work around this issue because they're dropping Win16 from Longhorn (but that won't stop 10 years of legacy programs floating out there).

2. POSIX 1.3/OS/2 (2.0??) - NT4 supported limited POSIX (filenames are case insensitive) and this continued into 2000. Not sure about XP. Never used a program myself for these two but obviously there was some value or it was just easy to implement.

3. I would like to see some kind of linux compatibility layer. Possibly GTK built in-to at least run some CLI programs without modification (or very little).
pax mei amici amorque et Iesus sacret omnia

mjs
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:03 pm

Post by mjs » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:14 pm

Floyd wrote:2. POSIX 1.3/OS/2 (2.0??) - NT4 supported limited POSIX (filenames are case insensitive) and this continued into 2000. Not sure about XP. Never used a program myself for these two but obviously there was some value or it was just easy to implement.
When Microsoft didn't work on OS/2 any more, they used the same kernel for their Windows NT. I believe that the OS/2 subsystem was a legacy.

Regards,
Mark

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests