^

^

he's talking about you, lothaire.

Would you be so smart to program smp support for reactos then?

remember, you're talking to the dude that can barely code properly a msgbox lmao

I feel stupid af as well

if all you can do is talk shit about reactos, then it would be a good idea to not follow this project and well, leave

Maybe you shouldn't shit on smart people's progress then

Maybe you shouldn't shit on smart people's progress then

I hate people like that

Maybe you shouldn't shit on smart people's progress then

Is it smart to do something not smart ?

I hate people like that

Me too, but sometimes I do act as one

And what is the non-smart thing you're referring to?

And what is the non-smart thing you're referring to?

64bit computing before multi core computing, which is something that even MS themselves thought it was better to do Remember when XP 64bit was more a proof of concept than an usable everyday OS ?

X64 bit started with single core CPUs on the consumer market

AHEM

oh huh

now its gone

You gotta start somewhere. Besides, did it occur to you that maybe the guy who implemented x64 didn't know how to do a multi core implementation?

this is true

And devs will not come out of nowhere.

And devs will not come out of nowhere.

The problem is (or lack of) money If the foundation wants more devs (which they would like to get, but as volunteers) It's not how economy works You can't live out donations for 20+ years and have a big great prospering project If anyone has examples like that, it'll be interesting to see Sure, ROS is doing huge leaps forward, but keep in mind that if any other company like MS, IBM, and even Acer, Hewlett Packard, and others had to say something about it, they'll have a fucking laugh Even the Linux Foundation has a way more complex and involved business model, not only relying on donations of big IT actors There was the Community Edition thing that happened way back (don't know the date, doesn't matter for my point) and it flopped for two big reasons First, people donated to something they never got, and second, the advertising wasn't on point, at the time, ReactOS was progressing way slower than now, and CE didn't help all that much. It progresses faster and faster, but nothing is helping it, just time, and people knowing more and more the project

Is it smart to do something not smart ?

The actual problem here is you do not understand the ReactOS development flow. We are working in the areas we do understand, and we do not touch the areas we do not understand. With the first areas we are doing what we like to do, but also trying to avoid hacks. Sometimes it's hard to avoid hacks. You can call this development flow "not smart", but you should understand that the flow will not change as you wish. Once you understand that, you should also understand there is no point in saying what did you say. That is common sense.

The actual problem here is you do not understand the ReactOS development flow. We are working in the areas we do understand, and we do not touch the areas we do not understand. With the first areas we are doing what we like to do, but also trying to avoid hacks. Sometimes it's hard to avoid hacks. You can call this development flow "not smart", but you should understand that the flow will not change as you wish. Once you understand that, you should also understand there is no point in saying what did you say. That is common sense.

Hence why ReactOS won't ever go to beta. Just because of that point Doing whatever the devs want to do, and not elaborating themselves a calendar (without being stressful about it) is not a FOSS business model

Oh not this again...

That said, if you want to be a part of community, you should try to understand it. If you do not understand, or do not want to understand, it's better to leave.

And if you do not want to understand and do not want to leave, we have to use the force.

the force is strong in stas'm, i wouldnt underestimate his power if i was you, even if you *had* the high ground

Actually, only this one screenshot gives a high chance ReactOS once will become beta.

Actually, only this one screenshot gives a high chance ReactOS once will become beta.

512MBs of RAM

That said, if you want to be a part of community, you should try to understand it. If you do not understand, or do not want to understand, it's better to leave.

Well, I just feel like the devs aren't listening to the community. I'm far from the only one that thinks that things have to maybe accomodate the bigger and bigger fanbase

ReactOS x86-64 is coming!

Ok, back to topic, here are ISO links from Illen: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_7eG_29EnQb7xHtqN9EGr2bRisHDhpuB And the bootcd with rosapps https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oYUh03FV4XqXl_rI5gL7DO0DsiyfINOn

<Cernodile> I just backread and wonder how daft some people can be. People aren't saying that x64 means we're all beta and x1000 more stable to 1.0 now, Lothaire. It's a milestone to be compatible on both archs. I'd like to see you develop anything if you're so smart.

I am happy for x64 ros. Yes, 64 bit has been out for a long time. However, I do not agree with people who don't want 32 bit anymore. here in Italy, especially in small factories, 32 bit systems are still very common, and many programs still have a 32 bit version

<Cernodile> 32-bit version will still stay, it isn't "oh now that x64 exist, we abandon 32 bits". The work is for most part synced between architectures when changes are done.

<Cernodile> We have no reason to ditch 32 bit support with our target as most software exist in 32-bit form for it

yes

plus major Linux distros won't abandon 32 bit due to Wine and Proton

<Cernodile> Even the latest Windows 10 still has 32 bit versions, why should we follow what Linux does here?

<Cernodile> and also that

<Cernodile> Most development will still happen on 32 bit as that's what 90% of XP's software was built for

<Cernodile> Having x64 support early is a must if we want to approach modern machines capabilities instead of locking them down to 32-bit address lengths

<Cernodile> 32-bit version will still stay, it isn't "oh now that x64 exist, we abandon 32 bits". The work is for most part synced between architectures when changes are done.

I'd say even more. If ReactOS will be ported to other CPU architectures, no matter modern ones like ARM64, or archaic ones like DEC Alpha or 68k, everything will be supported, developed, and synced together.

<Cernodile> and developers even have the infrastructure to make sure breaking changes get addressed quickly in form of build bots and automated regression testing

downloading x64 images

gonna test on my laptop with RAM boot

Wow

gonna test on my laptop with RAM boot

With real hw😏

Yep

<Cernodile> Even the latest Windows 10 still has 32 bit versions, why should we follow what Linux does here?

Windows 10 on 32bit is starting of being a problem as well, as hardware that's 32bit only means also (in 99% of cases, lackluster performance, and only 3.25GB roughly of RAM, either SATA I or PATA, USB 2.0/FW 400/ single core CPU. In summary a machine that barely runs Windows 10's UI correctly and barely launches anything with patience

<hbelusca> that's because windows 10 is bloat.

<hbelusca> that's because windows 10 is bloat.

^ Exactly

<hbelusca> that's because windows 10 is bloat.

I'm talking about an unbloated Windows 10, no one has to suffer from Win10 Home installing itself shit I do not even want to touch

is anyone else following or is he just talking out of his ass again?

compatibility isn't bad, it's not like the it's broken or anything. worrying about "bloat" with ReactOS sounds like a non-issue lol

<Cernodile> We have no reason to ditch 32 bit support with our target as most software exist in 32-bit form for it

I fully agree

Has anyone successfully downloaded ROS-amd64-2020.7z? Download does not start for me, but I've got bootcd-amd64-2020-rosapps.7z downloaded.

<hbelusca> it works here.

Maybe it's blocked/lower priority in some countries

<hbelusca> why? if so the whole google drive would be blocked

I just get that feeling sometimes when I travel, I know it sounds stupid

Ok, back to topic, here are ISO links from Illen: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_7eG_29EnQb7xHtqN9EGr2bRisHDhpuB And the bootcd with rosapps https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oYUh03FV4XqXl_rI5gL7DO0DsiyfINOn

I'm getting only a black screen after freeldr (also on screen mode)

I'm getting only a black screen after freeldr (also on screen mode)

"Welcome to ReactOS tech support, how can I help you" memes getting ready

you're a fucking nuisance now get the fuck out if you cant be helpful

I'm getting only a black screen after freeldr (also on screen mode)

I'm using a Dell Inspiron 3442 i3-4005U, 4 GB of RAM, Intel HD Graphics 4400

you're a fucking nuisance now get the fuck out if you cant be helpful

Just assume I'm someone else

Just assume I'm someone else

Nobody here behaves like you

I'm using a Dell Inspiron 3442 i3-4005U, 4 GB of RAM, Intel HD Graphics 4400

Did you deactivate Secure boot and enabled CSM ? Booted ReactOS in BIOS mode ? Put your drive in IDE mode instead of AHCI And tell us now if it works better

<hbelusca> Did you unplug and replug the computer?

<hbelusca> Did you unplug and replug the computer?

Restart the modem, please ;)

Between Ctrl and Alt there is a key with four squares, do you see it ? :D

🙄

Nobody here behaves like you

just throw him out, please

Did you deactivate Secure boot and enabled CSM ? Booted ReactOS in BIOS mode ? Put your drive in IDE mode instead of AHCI And tell us now if it works better

Yes. x86 version works here

Just a gray screen on debug mode

<hbelusca> yes bootvid doesn't seem to work well.

Same thing happen in VGA mode

<hbelusca> yeah things happen, and then you end up with this bug:

<hbelusca> ``` VGADDIDrvEnableSurface() called Assertion H:\reactosx64\win32ss\gdi\eng\surface.c(133): (LONG)cy > 0 win32k!SURFACE_AllocSurface+0xc2: fffff880`04f5e132 cd2c int 2Ch kd> kv # Child-SP RetAddr : Args to Child : Call Site 00 fffff880`04bb8a60 fffff880`04f5d8ae : fffff8a0`00420001 fffff8a0`00000000 fffff8a0`00000000 fffff880`00000002 : win32k!SURFACE_AllocSurface+0xc2 [H:\reactosx64\win32ss\gdi\eng\surface.c @ 133] ```