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 351891
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

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.


I agree with you. XP is a rock solid OS. But, I was speaking of Window 2000's userland / user experience (which I prefer even to this day over XP's, when I'm forced to use Windows - I'm a Linux guy.) :-)

Reply Parent Score: 7