Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 17th Jan 2009 16:34 UTC
Permalink for comment 344216
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-26
Ah, but there was also Server 2003, and XP64bit which *are* different (even though you'd probably like to believe they aren't relevant). These had newer driver requirements for example.
Personally, I use XP64 at home, and work with Server 2003 quite a bit at work, and find them very pleasant. The user-interface is a very very minor part of the re-creation of Windows - so this is not what you should base your decision on. The re-creation of subsystems, APIs, and the driver model are much more important for the ReactOS project.
I too would welcome an XP as the target, but you have to remain realistic as well. The advantage, as you're pointing out, is that XP has had a long run, with much success software and driver-wise, and this doesn't seem to be dying yet. But in 5-10 years from now, I suspect many hardware manufacturers will cease to offer XP drivers, and the advantage that ReactOS is counting on - driver binary compatibility - will start to subside again.
In any case, I fully support this project, and want to see it succeed and flourish as well