The new ReactOS newsletter has been published. "Currently the main development branch "trunk" even though it has many new features and bug fixes since 0.3.0, it currently has several issues that prevent it from being relatively useful. Furthermore functionality that once worked no longer does, this is called a regression. Until trunk has been reasonably fixed 0.3.1 will not be released. Be assured that the developers are working hard on fixing the current issues and bringing forth a good public release as soon as humanly possible."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-26
If that's what you're after, I can fulfill your dream today and send you one of my copies of NT 4 for free. Nobody wants that though.
Of course they don't want NT4 - microsoft doesn't support it, and Windows 2000 and XP are basically just newer versions. Otherwise, it's got the same basic shell, the same API, and the same basic kernel. The driver model has changed somewhat (especially for video drivers) - and that's probably why many hardware manufacturers don't provide drivers for it still (since it's not even supported by the vendor that created it).
You have to understand that people are literally FORCED to upgrade windows - as Microsoft leaves them with very little choice.
On the other hand, I would happily still use NT4 also, if I had to 
Member since:2006-09-16
Member since:
2007-01-08
I agree with the original poster.
There really isn't much of a market for ReactOS. There are plenty of copies of NT 4 floating around out there, but you never hear anybody posting their great successes of getting NT 4 running on OS X, or anywhere else for that matter.
If that's what you're after, I can fulfill your dream today and send you one of my copies of NT 4 for free. Nobody wants that though.
Also, if you think Microsoft is going to stand by and allow a binary compatible, drop-in replacement OS to succeed (regardless if it merely copies one of their 10 year old technologies), you are sadly fooling yourself I'm afraid.
The original poster's comment was valid. Shame on those myopic folk who rated it down.