@reactos - страница 647 - Telegram web archive

Mike

hacker420: imagine it running under ReactOS

A better bsod than the original bsod!

Anas

What's the point of this thing?

Anonymous

uhhhhhhh, for the o r b

Anas

What orb

Anonymous

What orb

Anonymous

pondering the o r b

Anas

Oh that thing

Tony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xwB6pWypuk

Tony

05:15 - RemixOS??? He has no idea how to even call it...

Chungy

before I even watch, I can do a quick thing S: Windows 2000 A: Windows 95, NT 4.0, XP, 7 B: Windows 98, Me, Vista, 8.x C: Windows NT 3.5x D: Windows 3.x, 10, 11 F: Windows NT 3.1

Chungy

I never really used Windows 1.0 or 2.x, so I wouldn't really count them

Chungy

lmao this guy. "Nobody that actually used [Windows Me] for any period of time will disagree with me." Well, I did and I do.

Tony

He is very harsh about a lot of things that he is talking about

Chungy

I'd have a very different list than him if I made such a video

Tony

Most people will have a very different one

Chungy

I ran with Windows 95 for many years because I hated 98 (still my most hated version, honestly). Eventually a combination of Windows 2000 and Me replaced that.

Chungy

"While [Vista] launched and 64-bit was added..." 2003 and XP had a 64-bit port first. :p

Tony

2000 was a good release for sure, but not entirely bug-free

Camarada Gato

Impossible challenge: Explain that Windows 1.x, 2.x and 3.x are not operating systems, but executables for DOS.

Chungy

First you must define operating system in a coherent manner to support your narrative.

Tony

"While [Vista] launched and 64-bit was added..." 2003 and XP had a 64-bit port first. :p

2003 and XP had a 64bit version at a later point, I believe

Chungy

correct. 2003 SP1 added a x86-64 port, and from that, Windows XP x64 Edition was derived.

Chungy

Impossible challenge: Explain that Windows 1.x, 2.x and 3.x are not operating systems, but executables for DOS.

I'm ok with all of them being considered OSes. Even Windows 1.0 introduced a multi-tasking windowing system of which introduced its own set of APIs for applications to be written against. Since you cannot run Windows programs in DOS, it's not fair to call them DOS applications. (This same logic could potentially apply to GEM and DesqView and any other environment installed on DOS)

Chungy

Windows 2.0/386 was the first version that really sucked the brains out of DOS and ran its own kernel directly on your hardware. Windows 3.1x would introduce a complete VM system to run DOS, Win16, and Win32S applications in independent virtual machines. Windows 95/98/Me were basically that same idea that WfW 3.11 had but MS stopped selling MS-DOS as a separate product.

Camarada Gato

I'm ok with all of them being considered OSes. Even Windows 1.0 introduced a multi-tasking windowing system of which introduced its own set of APIs for applications to be written against. Since you cannot run Windows programs in DOS, it's not fair to call them DOS applications. (This same logic could potentially apply to GEM and DesqView and any other environment installed on DOS)

I don't consider Windows 1.x as a multitasking system, because it doesn't have a kernel capable of scaling processes. Interrupts are delivered by programs, not imposed by the system, and that to me defines a single-tasking system.

Chungy

That's cooperative multitasking. You can still run multiple programs at once, but applications are responsible for freeing up the CPU for other processes. That held true for all iterations of Win16, including WoW in NT.

Chungy

Windows NT and 95 had pre-emptive multitasking. Basically the OS kernel gives applications time slices and the applications can't control it. They get time to process and that time is forcibly given to some other process that needs it.

Camarada Gato

DOS also had Terminate and Stay Resident and didn't need Windows for that.

Chungy

Anyhow, on the coherent definition of operating system: It is a program that interfaces between your hardware and applications, managing drivers and system services on behalf of applications. Windows 1.0 and 2.x/3.0 in real mode differed to DOS for some hardware resources. 2.x/3.x in 386 Enhanced mode replaced DOS's functionality entirely with a new kernel that talked to hardware directly.

Camarada Gato

Defining an operating system is really complicated. I know of definitions that apply to modern operating systems, but not to DOS.

Chungy

The fact there isn't a hard rule definition complicates matters :)

Chungy

if you want to say Windows wasn't an operating system, find a definition that excludes Windows and includes anything else you want to call an OS.

Chungy

By some level, I'd even argue DOS wasn't an OS. Applications could and frequently did override what DOS provided and did hardware drivers on their own.

Timofej

reactos number one on the world!

Camarada Gato

A "modern operating system", in my definition, must be able to schedule processes, manage virtual memory, scale or manage input and output devices, provide the necessary abstraction layers to facilitate access to hardware resources for programmers and execute programs. DOS is not a "modern operating system", because most of these definitions do not apply: - Does not schedule processes. - Virtual memory management requires other executable programs (aka "memory extenders"). - Hardware abstraction is very limited and devices are managed more by BIOS and programs than by the system itself. A system that doesn't have all these features and is still able to run other programs could perhaps be considered a form of operating system, but in a more limited way than "modern operating system".

Camarada Gato

Although it is still worth considering that there are modern operating systems whose virtual memory management is not done via the kernel, but by memory servers, but this is an exception that applies to some microkernel-based systems.

Matrix Telegram Bridge

reactos number one on the world!

Stas'M: yes

KuboF

Guys, I am wondering... do ReactOS have some plan or kind of concrete idea about how to sustain it's development (more, probably much more, than 1 full time job equivalent) at reasonable pace? not necessarily now, but at least after some kilometerstone, e.g. v 1.0 because I hardly can imagine an OS for masses supported just by volunteers with occasional help of paid developer for several months I myself have donated a little bit to ROS and would love to see more donations, and / or company sponsorships and would like to know what is already planned in this area

Chungy

MethanoVicky

the chinese "loongarch" looks good and the 3a6000 cpu is said to be as fast as zen2

MethanoVicky

but still, we may lack a compiler for reactos

MethanoVicky

since there is no windows for it

Chungy

Just needs someone to port the compiler

Chungy

As it happens, that already exists https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.1.0/gcc/LoongArch-Options.html

Chungy

Now port the OS

MethanoVicky

but for building pe files we may need more

Chungy

Define a new arch in the PE header

Chungy

All that work is possible if someone wants to to it.

Anonymous

mmmm, chinesium CPU

Lindro

All that work is possible if someone wants to to it.

Cc @The_DarkFire01

Lindro

Matrix Telegram Bridge

the chinese "loongarch" looks good and the 3a6000 cpu is said to be as fast as zen2

Stas'M: https://matrix.reactos.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/reactos.org/CgRdNUpOXYdAnvlYMSBoNIbL

MethanoVicky

Stas'M: https://matrix.reactos.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/reactos.org/CgRdNUpOXYdAnvlYMSBoNIbL

there was windows version for mips long long ago

MethanoVicky

even before win2k

MethanoVicky

final one is nt4.0

Matrix Telegram Bridge

Stas'M: yes

Chungy

still basically irrelevant to ReactOS, which neither uses Microsoft's code, nor exclusively depends on Microsoft's tools. eg: if you want to port to some architecture that Microsoft hasn't ported to, you're going to have to use GCC (or make ReactOS buildable with Clang, whatever approach you like)

Chungy

These things are only limited by skill and time.