Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Mar 2009 20:32 UTC
ReactOS The ReactOS team has just put out its latest newsletter, and it contains some interesting information on the progress being made. However, it also provides some definitive insight into what, exactly, the project is trying to recreate - a topic of some confusion.
Thread beginning with comment 351880
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
_df_
Member since:
2005-07-06

i agree with them that the 2003 kernel is the best choice for a solid base it seems odd to go after a moving target of vista, then 7 and so fourth. reproduce windsows server 2003 r2 and you are gold. thats one solid OS, even the linux evangelists have to give some credit where credit is due.


if i could laugh harder...

Lets target server 2003... because we got win98 soo 100% right.. and nt4... and win2k.. what a joke.

what makes you think they will get anything CLOSE to resembling 2k3r2.. shesh.

Reply Parent Score: -2

cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

if i could laugh harder...

Lets target server 2003... because we got win98 soo 100% right.. and nt4... and win2k.. what a joke.

what makes you think they will get anything CLOSE to resembling 2k3r2.. shesh.


As much as I hate to agree with you, I think you're right. ReactOS has always been pre pre pre pre pre alpha software in spite of the impressive strides it has made. When it began, it aimed for Windows 98 compatibility, and then eventually NT 4.x/5.x compatibility, and now Vista and Server 2003? Next year we'll be hearing how they're aiming for Windows 7 (and it's companion server) compatibility. I'd urge the ReactOS folks to produce a really good, free Windows 2000 clone (with modern theming and hardware support of course.) Since that was the best OS to emerge from Redmond IMHO, it's a good place to start.

Reply Parent Score: 8

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Personally, I think only the kernel target matters in these debates...

As much as I hate to agree with you, I think you're right. ReactOS has always been pre pre pre pre pre alpha software in spite of the impressive strides it has made. When it began, it aimed for Windows 98 compatibility


Well, we all know now that Win98 would have been a pretty sorry kernel to support... Moving to NT4 was the only logical choice once that realization was met.

and then eventually NT 4.x/5.x compatibility, and now Vista and Server 2003?


As pointed out, Server 2003 kernel is just an evolution of the NT5.x kernel (that Windows 2000 was also based on) - so they're really not all that far from the original goal...

free Windows 2000 clone (with modern theming and hardware support of course.) Since that was the best OS to emerge from Redmond IMHO, it's a good place to start.


What makes Windows XP's kernel worse than 2000? Please enlighten, because from where I sit, XP is a much better-looking target. It had (and still has) much better driver support than any other version of Windows, and thus I believe it would have been the best place to settle when targetting a specific kernel.

Keep in mind that the userland-side is an entirely different topic here - and I would agree that the Windows 2000 GUI was the last version I preferred using. But let's not mince this discussion by extending the very confusion that this article is about by talking about the UI/userland vs. the kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 7

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Just how big a difference is there between 2003 and say XP in terms of new functionality that needs to be supported? I think you guys are overdramatising this. It's not as if they chose to go for Vista as a target which has a whole new driver model.

I tried Reactos a couple of weeks ago and I was surprised to see so many programs working fine, it's not stable yet that's for sure (had several crashes) and there's some gui drawing errors here and there but overall I think it's shaping up nicely.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

ReactOS has always been pre pre pre pre pre alpha software in spite of the impressive strides it has made.


They'd need an order of magnitude more developers, and at least that much more funding, in order to have a hope of closing a Windows OS before its host designer's LTS expired...

Seeing as the ReactOS foundation is a public non-profit, it's possible (not easy) to find their reports and look at the numbers. They're... not pretty.

Reply Parent Score: 4

KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

ReactOS *never* targeted Windows 98. ROS was always about NT. There were other projects that came before ROS. They targeted Win9x. There were so many projects,sometimes different projects even used the same names. I think I even still have the source code of OpenWindows (not the UNIX DE with the same name) on some old CD-R. Other projects that were once started but never went anywhere were called FreeWin and Freedows.

Reply Parent Score: 5

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

ReactOS *never* targeted Windows 98. ROS was always about NT. There were other projects that came before ROS. They targeted Win9x. There were so many projects,sometimes different projects even used the same names. I think I even still have the source code of OpenWindows (not the UNIX DE with the same name) on some old CD-R. Other projects that were once started but never went anywhere were called FreeWin and Freedows.


I beleive you're misinformed. The project now known as ReactOS was started as a Win95 clone... Just changing the name of a product does not make it a different project.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

Lets target server 2003... because we got win98 soo 100% right.. and nt4... and win2k..


Fair is fair. Let's HOPE they can achieve their goals. It won't be easy though...

Reply Parent Score: 2