Pale Moon drops ReactOS support

[Thomas Mueller]

from Alexander Rechitskiy:

>   <div> </div><div><a
> href="https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=12011#p84556">…
> </div><div> </div><div>-- </div><div> 
I browsed that URL, can understand their point about ReactOS being too unstable to
support.

Jesse Smith of Distrowatch (distrowatch.com) tried ReactOS and found it unstable.

I still haven't tried to build or install ReactOS due to inability of finding a place
to put it: likely to crash on boot from USB, no support for GPT means I can't put it
on hard drive.

Only thing I can think of is to buy a cheap old SATA hard drive, partition it MBR, put it
in a Sabrent enclosure using eSATA rather than USB 2.0.

Then ReactOS could go on one partition, FreeDOS on another, and possibly grub 0.97,
grub4dos or GRUB 2 could fool the second-partition OS into thinking it was the first
partition.

I could format the two partitions for FAT32 with newfs_msdos on NetBSD or FreeBSD, or
mkdosfs on Linux, and the rest of the disk, third partition, could be formatted ext2fs.

Or maybe that would be the fourth partition, with third partition being FAT32 for extra
work/compiling space for FreeDOS and ReactOS?

I think I read that ReactOS can now read and write from and to ext2fs?

Tom

[Aleksey Bragin]

On 10.05.2016 19:26, Alexander Rechitskiy wrote:
>  
> https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=12011#p84556 
Maintaining ReactOS-specific
version of anything is not a good idea 
anyway. It's much more useful to fix bugs in ReactOS than to hide them 
in one specific app or game.

Regards,
Aleksey Bragin

[Ged Murphy]

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Aleksey
Bragin
Sent: 12 May 2016 11:57
To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support

On 10.05.2016 19:26, Alexander Rechitskiy wrote:
>  
> https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?t=12011#p84556 
Maintaining ReactOS-specific
version of anything is not a good idea anyway.
It's much more useful to fix bugs in ReactOS than to hide them in one
specific app or game.

Regards,
Aleksey Bragin

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Aleksey Bragin]

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.
>

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

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 <aleksey(a)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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Zachary Gorden]

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)
<gigaherz(a)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 <aleksey(a)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(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Mark Jansen]

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 <drakekaizer666(a)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)
>  <gigaherz(a)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 <aleksey(a)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(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Ged Murphy]

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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mark Jansen
Sent: 12 May 2016 18:14
To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)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 <drakekaizer666(a)gmail.com
<mailto:[e-mail]> > 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)
&lt;gigaherz(a)gmail.com <mailto:[e-mail]> > 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 &lt;aleksey(a)reactos.org
> <mailto:[e-mail]> > 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(a)reactos.org <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org <mailto:[e-mail]> 
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

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.maillists(a)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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Mark
>  Jansen
>  *Sent:* 12 May 2016 18:14
>  *To:* ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)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 <drakekaizer666(a)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)
>  <gigaherz(a)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 <aleksey(a)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(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

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 <
elhoir(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;gedmurphy.maillists(a)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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> >  Jansen
> >  *Sent:* 12 May 2016 18:14
> >  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
> >  *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 &lt;drakekaizer666(a)gmail.com&gt;
> >  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)
> >  &lt;gigaherz(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;aleksey(a)reactos.org&gt; 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(a)reactos.org
> > > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
> > >
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>

[David Quintana (gigaherz)]

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 <elhoir(a)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 <
>  elhoir(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.maillists(a)gmail.com&gt; 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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> > >  Jansen
> > >  *Sent:* 12 May 2016 18:14
> > >  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
> > >  *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 <
> > >  drakekaizer666(a)gmail.com&gt; 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)
> > >  &lt;gigaherz(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;aleksey(a)reactos.org&gt; 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(a)reactos.org
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  _______________________________________________
> > > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >  
> >  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Alexander Andrejevic]

As far as the kernel is concerned, Vista added pretty much all that was missing
in NT 5.x. What did 7, 8 and 8.1 add that is so important? Though I guess
targeting Vista would make us look bad simply because... well, it's Vista.

Regards,
Alex

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:27:26AM +0200, David Quintana (gigaherz) wrote:
>   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 <elhoir(a)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 <
>  > elhoir(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.maillists(a)gmail.com&gt; 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:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Mark
>  >>> Jansen
>  >>> *Sent:* 12 May 2016 18:14
>  >>> *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
>  >>> *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 <
>  >>> drakekaizer666(a)gmail.com&gt; 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)
>  >>> &lt;gigaherz(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;aleksey(a)reactos.org&gt;
> 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(a)reactos.org
>  >>> >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>  >>> >
>  >>> >
>  >>> >
>  >>> > _______________________________________________
>  >>> > Ros-dev mailing list
>  >>> > Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  >>> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>  >>>
>  >>> _______________________________________________
>  >>> Ros-dev mailing list
>  >>> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> _______________________________________________
>  >>> Ros-dev mailing list
>  >>> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>  >>>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > Ros-dev mailing list
>  > Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>  > 
>   _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 

-- 
Alexander Andrejevic &lt;theflash(a)sdf.lonestar.org&gt;
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[Ged Murphy]

Yep, I agree with everything David says here. It’s the only sensible way forward, unless
we’re aiming to be the next freedos.

 

A move to NT6 doesn’t mean we have to scrap everything we have that doesn’t fit that
architecture, it’s just means the project is free to start to move towards a more NT6 way
of doing things. It brings more freedom and fun to the project, keeps us relevant and
hopefully makes us more attractive to would-be developers.

 

Ged.

 

From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of David Quintana (gigaherz)
Sent: 14 May 2016 10:27
To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support

 

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

[Hans-Peter Diettrich]

Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo schrieb:
>   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..... 
+1

I'd like to see a modular system, that can be configured for whatever 
compatibility - as far as possible. I could imagine a modular OO 
approach, with virtual methods where needed, with lack of performance 
being compensated by progress in hardware.

DoDi

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

"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"

let´s try to get this to a stable stage, then we will think about NT6+

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1(a)aol.com>
wrote:

>   Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo schrieb:
>
> >   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.....
> >  
>  +1
>
>  I'd like to see a modular system, that can be configured for whatever
>  compatibility - as far as possible. I could imagine a modular OO approach,
>  with virtual methods where needed, with lack of performance being
>  compensated by progress in hardware.
>
>  DoDi
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Thomas Mueller]

On which version of MS-Windows ReactOS should try to emulate or be compatible with, being
compatible with a version from 2003 is not good enough.

There is the matter not only of applications but device drivers.

Manufacturer-supplied device drivers for Windows should be usable in ReactOS as much as
possible.  Being runnable only on old computers is not good enough.

One thing that sticks out on this list (ros-dev and ros-user) is the excessive quoting,
whereby the list footer that the server automatically adds to the end of every message,
and when quoting the whole message, the footer appears multiple times.  It is decidedly
inelegant when the list footer appears 5, 6 or 7 times on the same message due to
indiscriminately quoting the entire message.

I also say indiscriminate use of multipart/alternative is inelegant when one-part plain
text shows everything of interest.


Tom

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

"Being runnable only on old computers"

I think this is a bad understanding of the problem....

By such statement, it seems that ReactOS will only work on old computers.
And thats not true.

ReactOS may work in any computer where there is hardware drivers for. And,
as such, any software written for XP/2k3/ReactOS will work in that computer.

And afaik, manufacturers are still releasing drivers compatible with XP :)
(nVidia, for example....)

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Mueller <mueller6723(a)twc.com> wrote:

>   On which version of MS-Windows ReactOS should try to
> emulate or be
>  compatible with, being compatible with a version from 2003 is not good
>  enough.
>
>  There is the matter not only of applications but device drivers.
>
>  Manufacturer-supplied device drivers for Windows should be usable in
>  ReactOS as much as possible.  Being runnable only on old computers is not
>  good enough.
>
>  One thing that sticks out on this list (ros-dev and ros-user) is the
>  excessive quoting, whereby the list footer that the server automatically
>  adds to the end of every message, and when quoting the whole message, the
>  footer appears multiple times.  It is decidedly inelegant when the list
>  footer appears 5, 6 or 7 times on the same message due to indiscriminately
>  quoting the entire message.
>
>  I also say indiscriminate use of multipart/alternative is inelegant when
>  one-part plain text shows everything of interest.
>
>
>  Tom
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Hans-Peter Diettrich]

Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo schrieb:

>   ReactOS may work in any computer where there is
> hardware drivers for. 
>  And, as such, any software written for XP/2k3/ReactOS will work in that 
>  computer.
>  
>  And afaik, manufacturers are still releasing drivers compatible with XP 
>  :) (nVidia, for example....) 
How different are these drivers, except for installation procedures?

IOW, what could stop a driver from working on a different OS version?

DoDi

[Ged Murphy]

But you’re missing the point. The problem is that modern software is leaving XP behind and
focusing on Win7 as a minimum recommended requirement.

What use is ReactOS if none of the modern browsers or applications will run on it? It
limits the OS to being a compatibility solution for older software, or a POS device. No
one really wants to see that.

 

I think the best solution to start with is to keep reporting as 5.2 in the kernel, but
allowing developers to start moving to the NT6 model. An mish-mash of NT5 and NT6 can
co-exist as long things are done sensibly. e.g. adding IO cancelation to our NT5 kernel
isn’t going to make us incompatible for XP’s drivers, but it allows us to implement an NT6
feature which hugely benefits the OS. Other obvious candidates are unimplemented areas
such as the fltmgr . Why implement the 2k3 fltmgr when we can implement a later fltmgr
model which still loads older filter drivers.

 

Usermode should also still report as win2k3 (at least in the short term), but start to add
NT6 APIs directly into the codebase instead of using a shim. We then maintain a whitelist
of processes that don’t run on ros due to a minimum requirement issue, and they get a
modified result from VerifyVersionInfo (and friends) to a later OS version.

 

The above changes keep things pretty simple to start with, and allow us to move forward
almost immediately with very little infrastructure work. 

 

Ged.

 

 

From: Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Javier Agustìn Fernàndez
Arroyo
Sent: 15 May 2016 22:55
To: ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support

 

"Being runnable only on old computers"

I think this is a bad understanding of the problem....

By such statement, it seems that ReactOS will only work on old computers. And thats not
true.

ReactOS may work in any computer where there is hardware drivers for. And, as such, any
software written for XP/2k3/ReactOS will work in that computer.

And afaik, manufacturers are still releasing drivers compatible with XP :) (nVidia, for
example....)

[Riccardo Paolo Bestetti]

I'd like to drop my two cents, just because I really believe in this 
project's filosofy. Since things have gotten pretty hot in the past, 
especially when someone who is not a developer intervened in a 
discussion, let me apprise you that my only intention it to bring in the 
point of view of a potential user that really wants to see ReactOS 
happen and isn't emotionally attached to the work that has been done.

The reality is that very very few manufacturers and developers still 
support NT5 and all of them are going to drop support in the next few 
years. This is just a fact. NT5 is legacy software and there's nothing 
no one can do about that.

I've followed this project and this mailing list for the past five years 
and in this time I've upgraded all of the computer systems of my 
father's business to Windows 7 and then to Windows 10, because all the 
pieces of software they run dropped support for NT5, one after another. 
They still have a single machine in the whole building running Windows 
XP, for legacy software, and honestly they don't use it very often. In 
my school, pretty much the same. And even if someone, for whatever 
reason, intends to run NT5 for 10 more years, why should (s)he re-setup 
all the systems again to run ReactOS instead of keeping Windows XP?

The point is, you can either implement the architecture that runs all of 
the computer in building, or the architecture that runs that one legacy 
machine. And even that would happen if and only if you can achieve 100% 
compatibility with all of NT5 and Windows XP bugs and quirks and give 
people a really good reason to reinstall the OS on such machines, and 
sorry that's just not gonna happen.

I get why some of you may want to stick to NT5, but you have to be aware 
that if you do that ReactOS will never be used in the real world. No 
reason to stick to NT5 is good enough, since no one out there needs or 
wants NT5. Hell, it would probably be easier for a business to switch 
from NT6 to GNU/Linux than to go back to NT5.

Again, these are just the two cents of a guy that works in the field.

Best regards,
--- /Riccardo Paolo Bestetti/


Il 16/05/2016 16:42, Ged Murphy ha scritto:
>  
>  But you’re missing the point. The problem is that modern software is 
>  leaving XP behind and focusing on Win7 as a minimum recommended 
>  requirement.
>
>  What use is ReactOS if none of the modern browsers or applications 
>  will run on it? It limits the OS to being a compatibility solution for 
>  older software, or a POS device. No one really wants to see that.
>
>  I think the best solution to start with is to keep reporting as 5.2 in 
>  the kernel, but allowing developers to start moving to the NT6 model. 
>  An mish-mash of NT5 and NT6 can co-exist as long things are done 
>  sensibly. e.g. adding IO cancelation to our NT5 kernel isn’t going to 
>  make us incompatible for XP’s drivers, but it allows us to implement 
>  an NT6 feature which hugely benefits the OS. Other obvious candidates 
>  are unimplemented areas such as the fltmgr . Why implement the 2k3 
>  fltmgr when we can implement a later fltmgr model which still loads 
>  older filter drivers.
>
>  Usermode should also still report as win2k3 (at least in the short 
>  term), but start to add NT6 APIs directly into the codebase instead of 
>  using a shim. We then maintain a whitelist of processes that don’t run 
>  on ros due to a minimum requirement issue, and they get a modified 
>  result from VerifyVersionInfo (and friends) to a later OS version.
>
>  The above changes keep things pretty simple to start with, and allow 
>  us to move forward almost immediately with very little infrastructure 
>  work.
>
>  Ged.
>
>  *From:*Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of 
>  *Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo
>  *Sent:* 15 May 2016 22:55
>  *To:* ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
>  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support
>
>  "Being runnable only on old computers"
>
>  I think this is a bad understanding of the problem....
>
>  By such statement, it seems that ReactOS will only work on old 
>  computers. And thats not true.
>
>  ReactOS may work in any computer where there is hardware drivers for. 
>  And, as such, any software written for XP/2k3/ReactOS will work in 
>  that computer.
>
>  And afaik, manufacturers are still releasing drivers compatible with 
>  XP :) (nVidia, for example....)
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

And why does few developers, companies and such support NT5? Because MS
dropped support for those systems. But if ReactOS revives that support,
maybe companies will support us.

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <
riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it&gt; wrote:

>   I'd like to drop my two cents, just because I
> really believe in this
>  project's filosofy. Since things have gotten pretty hot in the past,
>  especially when someone who is not a developer intervened in a discussion,
>  let me apprise you that my only intention it to bring in the point of view
>  of a potential user that really wants to see ReactOS happen and isn't
>  emotionally attached to the work that has been done.
>
>  The reality is that very very few manufacturers and developers still
>  support NT5 and all of them are going to drop support in the next few
>  years. This is just a fact. NT5 is legacy software and there's nothing no
>  one can do about that.
>
>  I've followed this project and this mailing list for the past five years
>  and in this time I've upgraded all of the computer systems of my father's
>  business to Windows 7 and then to Windows 10, because all the pieces of
>  software they run dropped support for NT5, one after another. They still
>  have a single machine in the whole building running Windows XP, for legacy
>  software, and honestly they don't use it very often. In my school, pretty
>  much the same. And even if someone, for whatever reason, intends to run NT5
>  for 10 more years, why should (s)he re-setup all the systems again to run
>  ReactOS instead of keeping Windows XP?
>
>  The point is, you can either implement the architecture that runs all of
>  the computer in building, or the architecture that runs that one legacy
>  machine. And even that would happen if and only if you can achieve 100%
>  compatibility with all of NT5 and Windows XP bugs and quirks and give
>  people a really good reason to reinstall the OS on such machines, and sorry
>  that's just not gonna happen.
>
>  I get why some of you may want to stick to NT5, but you have to be aware
>  that if you do that ReactOS will never be used in the real world. No reason
>  to stick to NT5 is good enough, since no one out there needs or wants NT5.
>  Hell, it would probably be easier for a business to switch from NT6 to
>  GNU/Linux than to go back to NT5.
>
>  Again, these are just the two cents of a guy that works in the field.
>
>  Best regards,
>  --- *Riccardo Paolo Bestetti*
>
>  Il 16/05/2016 16:42, Ged Murphy ha scritto:
>
>  But you’re missing the point. The problem is that modern software is
>  leaving XP behind and focusing on Win7 as a minimum recommended requirement.
>
>  What use is ReactOS if none of the modern browsers or applications will
>  run on it? It limits the OS to being a compatibility solution for older
>  software, or a POS device. No one really wants to see that.
>
>
>
>  I think the best solution to start with is to keep reporting as 5.2 in the
>  kernel, but allowing developers to start moving to the NT6 model. An
>  mish-mash of NT5 and NT6 can co-exist as long things are done sensibly.
>  e.g. adding IO cancelation to our NT5 kernel isn’t going to make us
>  incompatible for XP’s drivers, but it allows us to implement an NT6 feature
>  which hugely benefits the OS. Other obvious candidates are unimplemented
>  areas such as the fltmgr . Why implement the 2k3 fltmgr when we can
>  implement a later fltmgr model which still loads older filter drivers.
>
>
>
>  Usermode should also still report as win2k3 (at least in the short term),
>  but start to add NT6 APIs directly into the codebase instead of using a
>  shim. We then maintain a whitelist of processes that don’t run on ros due
>  to a minimum requirement issue, and they get a modified result from
>  VerifyVersionInfo (and friends) to a later OS version.
>
>
>
>  The above changes keep things pretty simple to start with, and allow us to
>  move forward almost immediately with very little infrastructure work.
>
>
>
>  Ged.
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]
>  &lt;ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org&gt;] *On Behalf Of *Javier Agustìn Fernàndez
>  Arroyo
>  *Sent:* 15 May 2016 22:55
>  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt; &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
>  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support
>
>
>
>  "Being runnable only on old computers"
>
>  I think this is a bad understanding of the problem....
>
>  By such statement, it seems that ReactOS will only work on old computers.
>  And thats not true.
>
>  ReactOS may work in any computer where there is hardware drivers for. And,
>  as such, any software written for XP/2k3/ReactOS will work in that computer.
>
>  And afaik, manufacturers are still releasing drivers compatible with XP :)
>  (nVidia, for example....)
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing [e-mail]://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

 "companies and such support NT5?"

where "support NT5", i meant "drop support for NT5", sorry

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo <
elhoir(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>   And why does few developers, companies and such
> support NT5? Because MS
>  dropped support for those systems. But if ReactOS revives that support,
>  maybe companies will support us.
>
>  On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti <
>  riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it&gt; wrote:
>
> >   I'd like to drop my two cents, just because I
> > really believe in this
> >  project's filosofy. Since things have gotten pretty hot in the past,
> >  especially when someone who is not a developer intervened in a discussion,
> >  let me apprise you that my only intention it to bring in the point of view
> >  of a potential user that really wants to see ReactOS happen and isn't
> >  emotionally attached to the work that has been done.
> >
> >  The reality is that very very few manufacturers and developers still
> >  support NT5 and all of them are going to drop support in the next few
> >  years. This is just a fact. NT5 is legacy software and there's nothing no
> >  one can do about that.
> >
> >  I've followed this project and this mailing list for the past five years
> >  and in this time I've upgraded all of the computer systems of my father's
> >  business to Windows 7 and then to Windows 10, because all the pieces of
> >  software they run dropped support for NT5, one after another. They still
> >  have a single machine in the whole building running Windows XP, for legacy
> >  software, and honestly they don't use it very often. In my school, pretty
> >  much the same. And even if someone, for whatever reason, intends to run NT5
> >  for 10 more years, why should (s)he re-setup all the systems again to run
> >  ReactOS instead of keeping Windows XP?
> >
> >  The point is, you can either implement the architecture that runs all of
> >  the computer in building, or the architecture that runs that one legacy
> >  machine. And even that would happen if and only if you can achieve 100%
> >  compatibility with all of NT5 and Windows XP bugs and quirks and give
> >  people a really good reason to reinstall the OS on such machines, and sorry
> >  that's just not gonna happen.
> >
> >  I get why some of you may want to stick to NT5, but you have to be aware
> >  that if you do that ReactOS will never be used in the real world. No reason
> >  to stick to NT5 is good enough, since no one out there needs or wants NT5.
> >  Hell, it would probably be easier for a business to switch from NT6 to
> >  GNU/Linux than to go back to NT5.
> >
> >  Again, these are just the two cents of a guy that works in the field.
> >
> >  Best regards,
> >  --- *Riccardo Paolo Bestetti*
> >
> >  Il 16/05/2016 16:42, Ged Murphy ha scritto:
> >
> >  But you’re missing the point. The problem is that modern software is
> >  leaving XP behind and focusing on Win7 as a minimum recommended requirement.
> >
> >  What use is ReactOS if none of the modern browsers or applications will
> >  run on it? It limits the OS to being a compatibility solution for older
> >  software, or a POS device. No one really wants to see that.
> >
> >
> >
> >  I think the best solution to start with is to keep reporting as 5.2 in
> >  the kernel, but allowing developers to start moving to the NT6 model. An
> >  mish-mash of NT5 and NT6 can co-exist as long things are done sensibly.
> >  e.g. adding IO cancelation to our NT5 kernel isn’t going to make us
> >  incompatible for XP’s drivers, but it allows us to implement an NT6 feature
> >  which hugely benefits the OS. Other obvious candidates are unimplemented
> >  areas such as the fltmgr . Why implement the 2k3 fltmgr when we can
> >  implement a later fltmgr model which still loads older filter drivers.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Usermode should also still report as win2k3 (at least in the short term),
> >  but start to add NT6 APIs directly into the codebase instead of using a
> >  shim. We then maintain a whitelist of processes that don’t run on ros due
> >  to a minimum requirement issue, and they get a modified result from
> >  VerifyVersionInfo (and friends) to a later OS version.
> >
> >
> >
> >  The above changes keep things pretty simple to start with, and allow us
> >  to move forward almost immediately with very little infrastructure work.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Ged.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  *From:* Ros-dev [mailto:[e-mail]
> >  &lt;ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org&gt;] *On Behalf Of *Javier Agustìn Fernàndez
> >  Arroyo
> >  *Sent:* 15 May 2016 22:55
> >  *To:* ReactOS Development List &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
> >  &lt;ros-dev(a)reactos.org&gt;
> >  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Pale Moon drops ReactOS support
> >
> >
> >
> >  "Being runnable only on old computers"
> >
> >  I think this is a bad understanding of the problem....
> >
> >  By such statement, it seems that ReactOS will only work on old computers.
> >  And thats not true.
> >
> >  ReactOS may work in any computer where there is hardware drivers for.
> >  And, as such, any software written for XP/2k3/ReactOS will work in that
> >  computer.
> >
> >  And afaik, manufacturers are still releasing drivers compatible with XP
> >  :) (nVidia, for example....)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing [e-mail]://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>

[Riccardo Paolo Bestetti]

Hello Javier,
Thank you for your answer. Here's what I think about what you said.

Quoting myself:

    /Hell, it would probably be easier for a business to switch from NT6
    to GNU/Linux than to go back to NT5./

I was pretty serious. :)
Sorry if it wasn't clear, but by that I meant that developers would 
never go back to an old architecture, even if it's made Open Source.

We are talking about Open Source NT5 (legacy, maintened by a few 
talented developers, likely to be usable in a few years) vs. Open Source 
GNU/Linux (modern, maintened by hundreds of talented developers and 
supported by companies, used today to run the web). There's no game. 
It's not like developers are gonna pick up again an old (and, honestly, 
bad!) architecture just because it is made free, when *here and now* we 
already have a better alternative. This is obviously going to get worse 
as time passes, because that one last NT5 machine I mentioned in my 
previous email will be eventually eliminated too.

The only game ReactOS is likely to be able to compete on is NT6, or 
whatever NT will be mainstream when ReactOS will be ready for the real 
world. People need to be able to build or buy a new PC, load a ReactOS 
image and start working right away with their usual Windows software and 
tools. No one wants to live the whole NT6 migration again, let alone 
living it in reverse. And I'm not only speaking about office workers, 
but also developers.

Best regards and good luck,
--- /Riccardo Paolo Bestetti/

Il 17/05/2016 16:44, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo ha scritto:
>   "companies and such support NT5?"
>
>  where "support NT5", i meant "drop support for NT5", sorry
>
>  On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo 
>  &lt;elhoir(a)gmail.com <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>      And why does few developers, companies and such support NT5?
>      Because MS dropped support for those systems. But if ReactOS
>      revives that support, maybe companies will support us.
>
>      On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Riccardo Paolo Bestetti
>      &lt;riccardo.kyogre(a)live.it <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>          I'd like to drop my two cents, just because I really believe
>          in this project's filosofy. Since things have gotten pretty
>          hot in the past, especially when someone who is not a
>          developer intervened in a discussion, let me apprise you that
>          my only intention it to bring in the point of view of a
>          potential user that really wants to see ReactOS happen and
>          isn't emotionally attached to the work that has been done.
>
>          The reality is that very very few manufacturers and developers
>          still support NT5 and all of them are going to drop support in
>          the next few years. This is just a fact. NT5 is legacy
>          software and there's nothing no one can do about that.
>
>          I've followed this project and this mailing list for the past
>          five years and in this time I've upgraded all of the computer
>          systems of my father's business to Windows 7 and then to
>          Windows 10, because all the pieces of software they run
>          dropped support for NT5, one after another. They still have a
>          single machine in the whole building running Windows XP, for
>          legacy software, and honestly they don't use it very often. In
>          my school, pretty much the same. And even if someone, for
>          whatever reason, intends to run NT5 for 10 more years, why
>          should (s)he re-setup all the systems again to run ReactOS
>          instead of keeping Windows XP?
>
>          The point is, you can either implement the architecture that
>          runs all of the computer in building, or the architecture that
>          runs that one legacy machine. And even that would happen if
>          and only if you can achieve 100% compatibility with all of NT5
>          and Windows XP bugs and quirks and give people a really good
>          reason to reinstall the OS on such machines, and sorry that's
>          just not gonna happen.
>
>          I get why some of you may want to stick to NT5, but you have
>          to be aware that if you do that ReactOS will never be used in
>          the real world. No reason to stick to NT5 is good enough,
>          since no one out there needs or wants NT5. Hell, it would
>          probably be easier for a business to switch from NT6 to
>          GNU/Linux than to go back to NT5.
>
>          Again, these are just the two cents of a guy that works in the
>          field.
>
>          Best regards,
>          --- /Riccardo Paolo Bestetti/
>