ROS should take-over the missing Win32/Win9x flatform

[etko]

oiaohm - you said some safeguards are left from Win XP DirectX, can you elaborate more on this? Where can I find some info? Will be those safeguards left out from ReactOS too?

zydon - if you are nitpicking just go and install FreeDOS, your machine will boot up in like 3 seconds. With UDMA driver with large HDD your disk will be fast like in W9x V86 emulator. With their XMS driver you can have all the 2GBs (personally tested) of memory you might have in system, as this "OS" will use like 0,5-1 MB from that. Now only problem you have is to get some software which will actually make use of these untapped potentials . Yeah I believe it could be good console OS given specs for nVidia and ATI hardware accelerators would be truly open for someone to write driver.

I tried both W95, W98. And later 98lited W98 with W95 Explorer, then WinNT 4.1. Yes the truth is that on old PII >400 Mhz NT is much more sluggish than W9x, but I liked much more then the W9x lot. You truly can feel the difference in stability .

[oiaohm]

Working with greatlord at one point I asked why some tests Direct X would fail nicely with a seh call under windows 2000 yet blue screen of death XP.

Sad bit checking data passed to direct x calls only costs 0.01 of a percent.

Those safe guards will still be in Reactos React x.

WinNT 4.1 is running a lot of services. It needs cleaning. MS was still shiping up and including 2003 after install lots of serverices on needed for server work.

Cleaned up WinNT 4.1 for workstation use would run rings around w9x.

Ie you need a WinNT cut back like 98lited. Yes there was a lot to cut off.

[zydon]

Is there any possibilities for ROS developers to make a parallel 'unsupported' version of ROS that is very much like Win95OSR2?

Probably, it's called as REACT Mini OS or REACT Light OS or whatever name which is very 'naive' OS that read/write directly to the hardware without security layer in mind. Completely used under any individual responsibility who test it if it will broke the hardware.

It can be the best target practice for ROS developers to write quickly a new drivers, graphics engine or even as a straight forward software compatibility test based on MS-DOS and MS-Windows OS.

This could help develop current ROS having a speed-up progress on it's hardware drivers when someone could write very fast driver for SB16 soundcard, for instance, for the 'Light/Mini' version. Then someone else take the driver and modify it to integrate with the security layer into current ROS version.

I think the Light/Mini version would very easy accepted by most of ex-DOS/Win95 users and you'll see how fast drivers and application will be developed for it. The same way like the old MS-DOS day.

Yet, the best thing is, this 'Win95' compatible OS is not made by Microsoft and it could live as long as the source code available and people writing drivers and applications for it. At least, the drivers written for 'Light/Mini' ROS could be used for Win95 OS on new hardware. It's still a good thing...

Hobbyist, student and many others would very happy to support this version as it is a straight forward 16/32bits OS and troubleshooting problems might be easier using the old day DOS/Win95 documentation that already existed around.

It may develop a surprise trend where this OS may running on portable devices, since todays mobile and portable devices had more strong hardware capabilities and memory not like the old days. Only the sky is the limit...

I had nothing against NT based OS. Just it is not kind of OS that fit my need very well. Win9x based OS has left an empty hole that should be full filled where it has a very large based of users.


May be, I just had a day dreaming...

[Haos]

Sure, you are free to start such project, get your own developers etc.

[Z98]

You're really asking the wrong project about this. The only ones who might be interested is the FreeDOS people, since they have a working DOS codebase to attempt it.

[zydon]

Z98, I think not. I'm on the right place.

Btw, what FreeDOS got to do with Win95 or GUI OS development?

I wonders why some of you like to refer FreeDOS in this topic since it has nothing to do with GUI and DirectX for gaming at all.

I was once considered to try ROS 0.3.3 with Wine's DirectX, since it much better rendering than ROS 0.3.4. But, ROS has yet any sound card drivers I've found to run in QEMU or VMWare. Probably ROS developer should consider at least SB16 sound card driver available so Wine could provide a little success running a few working games with sound.

I guess, I will have to wait for that very long to happened because of security reason....

[Z98]

Except what you're asking for is basically compatibility for 9x drivers designed for DOS, which is a kernel thing and the direct use of hardware in certain games, something that the NT kernel cannot provide since we will never allow direct access to the underlying hardware.

FreeDOS is far more likelier to give you what you want, at least in terms of hardware support. Yes, they don't have a graphical subsystem, but considering all the work Wine and ROS has put into creating a windows subsystem, they're perfectly free to make use of it.

Anyways, as far as old games go, there are some things we cannot compromise on.

[z180]

I posted an idea for running VXDs in the other 9x thread.
The NTVDM of windows XP is a bit incomplete(ReactOS NTVDM ).
For freedos GUI I recommend GEM which is GPL and stable and can
be programmed with most DOS compilers,but not much progs exist.
Freedos can run a lot of DOS games and old windows revisions.

[Blackcrack]

Hy,

hummm... idea...
a win9X subsystem with dos as own of first
internal project in Ros to use like in a pif ...
options like :
using using one CPU (or two or four for x86 Games if have 4CPU's)
use it with 9X-compliant Subsystem....
use RealDos(Freedos or other..for hardware flashing,
direckt connect to floppy to formating or so...)
get a Win9X-DFXport to opengl(for playing old demos or other old programs)
get a dos-DFXport to opengl(for playing old demos or other old programs)

or other options :\

regards
Blacky

[Haos]

No Blackrack, it cannot be a subsystem. Its too reliant on direct hardware access, which cannot be safely accepted.

[Blackcrack]

Hy Haos,

good mrning*uahh*
if they directly access to the hardware like it or not, nobody should
someone else forcing a decision, but we are finally free to decide and
not machines, programmed the human and not the mashin, so if an
advanced user would like to decide, he is the decide! dut, shold
declared it is for advanced User..
Haos, dont forget, we are all Humans... and we sold all be free and
nobody should be locked up in its decision .. more more flowers there
are even more color and variety, there are so beautiful, the field.
Dont forget it, keep to the nature, including the nature of the people.
Apropo diskuss.... humm manny postings

Also, why not a subsystem for Advanced Users who know what they are
maked ! it shold give, my mean.. how ever, nobody should put any limit
to whom¿, the Dun only those who benefit them. And as in Reactos directly
subsystems programing in, it comes eventually come you cant stop it,
nobody should set limit any one, doing only those who benefit them.
And since it directly Reactos subsystems in a program,
some will come when, because nobody was on the other hand,
or is it Haos, Reactos is free and should remain so, it is also free to get
subsystems that formerly existed in pure form .
Now just here in reactos for advanced Users..

regards
Blacky

[DangerGround]

With all this virtualisation stuff today, might it be possible to run this subsystem in a sandbox or only give access to virtual hardware only?

[Blackcrack]

hy,

like DirectX ? i think shold be possible :\ and a option who it
is hide to use direckt hardwareaccess to advanced Users..
enabling over "Dos" let run Biosflash how in the old times,
but in the running ROS with directconnect to hardware if it is enabled..
or direckt hardware connect to Floppy... i think so..

Regards
Blacky

[Haos]

You are wrong, Blackcrack, there are limits of what can be done. I suggest you start getting some real coding skill and try to complete at least the most simple one of your crazy ideas. A failure or two would get you so needed humility lesson.

@DangerGround

Possible, if you are going to accept all what comes with such solution.
The most important issue right now, is that there is no one to code it. I doubt Blackrack will ever try to do it himself...

[EmuandCo]

Blackcrack. NT will thank you soo much for hacking around all security shemes which normally cause some 9x apps not to run. Unsecure, unstable, unusable. If we realize this then we made the step 9x to nt arch in ros's past completely useless.