No, ros isn't a project to revive xp/2003, it has never been. The project decided to stick to 2003 many years ago, because it was unreasonable to try to keep up, and it was best to remain on a static target. When XP/2003 got close to EOL, we decided to use the fact that ReactOS is NT5 as a PR advantage, but I don't even know that this did much for us.
The problem we have now, is this target is now so far back that many of us feel that staying on it may hurt the project more than help it. Here is how I see it: There's two kinds of potentially large groups of users of ReactOS: 1. The users of older hardware or software who require NT5 in order to run specific devices or applications that aren't compatible with newer systems, or 2. The Windows users who like the Windows Platform, but want something more flexible, adaptable, and free of corporate control. My guess is the number of people who would use ros simply because it implements and old architecture and they have an irrational dislike of anything newer, is a tiny minority. If this is right, then we have two separate issues: 1. We can't really "sell" (convince them to use) reactos to the first group, simply because it's too unstable an incomplete, so they'd rather stay on the real thing rather than use ros (with exceptions), and 2. We can't really "sell" reactos to the second group, unless we can run the new applications designed for NT6+ that the second group is currently enjoying. So the project has two possible goals: 1. Continue doing as it does now, keep the NT5.2 target, stabilize the existing components, and develop the remaining components, all within the limitations of NT5, or 2. Start an NT6 effort, maintaining NT5 compatibility through the compatibility systems (apphelp, sxs, and whatever else may be involved), that are already being developed regardless, but opening the doors to all the new software that has been developed for NT6+ And I have a strong feeling that the first group are less likely to contribute to the project, and less likely to adopt the project in the future, so yes, I would like the project to move in the other direction, not back to a dynamic target, just choose a new target to stick to, that isn't so far back, but isn't also being changed constantly anymore, and right now, that would be NT6.3 (Windows 8.1 -- but we don't have to implement the Modern UI or remove the start menu, or any of that crap, this is about structure and APIs). I may be biased, though: I'm most definitely on the second group. As a developer, I like ros because I like Windows over other platforms, but I'd love if it was opensource so I could tweak certain things beyond the options they provide. If ReactOS would start an effort to add NT6 features, I'd most definitely feel a renewed interest in the project, which you may have noticed has been already quite low these days. P.S.: There's no NT7, Microsoft decided to change the NT version to match the client version, so windows 10 is now NT10, and like apple did with OSX, they plan on making future versions of windows just 10.x ;P On 14 May 2016 at 08:51, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo <elh...@gmail.com> wrote: > And, ROS is not complete yet. Isnt it more reliable to try to get it > stable for NT5, then shitch to NT6? > > If we change now, we are leaving things undone.... and we will leave them > again when switching to NT7, and so..... > > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo < > elh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> isnt this a project to "revive WinXP/2k3"? >> >> i think there is no need to upgrade to NT6... >> >> Yes, we will get outdated, but if we revive NT5, probably ROS can get >> that support back. Not for XP, but ReactOS. And XP/2k3 apps will work >> again, with us >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Ged Murphy < >> gedmurphy.mailli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It might be worth putting a doc together listing the kernel parts we’re >>> missing, the areas which need changes, and the areas which can be left >>> as-is. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark >>> Jansen >>> *Sent:* 12 May 2016 18:14 >>> *To:* ReactOS Development List <ros-dev@reactos.org> >>> *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> For the features where this is possible without kernel support, >>> >>> there is a mechanism in the pipeline that makes this possible: 'apphelp' >>> >>> Currently I am still working on the base layer, >>> >>> but when that is progressed a bit more we could integrate it more >>> tightly in the Ldr, >>> >>> so that it uses the target platform to apply automatic fixes (shims). >>> >>> >>> >>> Having said that, it might be worth to upgrade parts of the kernel (only >>> where it makes sense) to NT6 already, >>> >>> without exposing that to applications. >>> >>> Especially in new parts, as it would mean that something is written for >>> NT5 now, and first thing we do next is upgrade it to NT6. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Zachary Gorden < >>> drakekaizer...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Quite a few 'userland' features of NT6 requires kernel support to >>> function properly. If we go in, it would be, do NT6 kernel and slowly >>> bring the userland up to NT6. But we don't have a fully working NT5 >>> kernel yet, so.... >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Quintana (gigaherz) >>> <gigah...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > If we do NT6, we may want to have latest NT6 instead of trying to >>> stick to >>> > an older one and having the same deprecation issue in a couple years? >>> > >>> > Also, what about the "idea" of keeping the majority of the kernel and >>> large >>> > part of the usermode NT5, but having compatibility profiles that >>> > implement/emulate NT6 API functions using the existing NT5 feature >>> set? Is >>> > that unrealistic? >>> > >>> > On 12 May 2016 at 14:39, Aleksey Bragin <alek...@reactos.org> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Which again brings in the topic of updating the version we are >>> targeting. >>> >> Windows 7 would be a minimum target these days, IMO. >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Aleksey Bragin >>> >> >>> >> On 12.05.2016 14:04, Ged Murphy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Yeah it's nonsense. No one drops support for ReactOS, they drop >>> support >>> >>> for >>> >>> older versions of Windows which likely includes reactos too. >>> >>> If they were adding in ReactOS specific code, they were doing it >>> wrong. >>> >>> >>> >>> The bigger issue here is that a lot of apps are starting to drop >>> support >>> >>> for >>> >>> XP and recommend a minimum of Win7. If we don't do something about >>> our >>> >>> insistence on sticking with 2k3, we'll soon be in a position where no >>> >>> browsers will run on ros, as well as a whole other list of apps. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ged. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Ros-dev mailing list >>> >> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>> >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Ros-dev mailing list >>> > Ros-dev@reactos.org >>> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ros-dev mailing list >>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ros-dev mailing list >>> Ros-dev@reactos.org >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
