ReactOS

[IG-88]

Been looking at this O/S. Has anyone any experience with it? Any comments? Is it really as compatiable with windows hardware & software as they claim? Wonder how well this would work in our cabs?....

http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html

Only found one other comment about it here in the forum.

[elvis]

1) React is highly experimental.  Do not expect stallar performance from it.

2) In a cab, why would you want a desktop system?  FreeDOS and/or Linux are perfectly usable alternatives, both of which are a $0 outlay, and both will give superior performance over React.

[youki]

I follows this OS since a while. Waiting to have a good a DirectX support...  And then may be try to port Atomic on it.

The fact to have the source, is really good. And we could optimize it to build a pure OS dedicated to Arcade cabinet.

Wait and see...

[Howard_Casto]

It is amazing that they've gotten it to work this well, but my guess is they'll never fully get directx support simulated.  Dx gets info on a card based on the driver, so unless they perfectly re-create every single driver for every single video card, it'd be a crap-shoot as to if your card would work.  Think linux hardware support but even worse.

And elvis, in a cab why wouldn't you want windows?  You have pc games, fes that don't look like crap and 20 times more emulators to play with. 

[youki]

Dx gets info on a card based on the driver, so unless they perfectly re-create every single driver for every single video card,

Yes, you're right. But i think that windows drivers will be (or already are for some) compatible with ReactOS.

Extract from the ReactOS web site :

ReactOS aims to achieve complete binary compatibility with both applications and device drivers meant for NT and XP operating systems, by using a similar architecture and providing a complete and equivalent public interface.

[Grasshopper]

I really hope this OS becomes a viable alternative to Windows but I'll bet Micro$oft uses every dirty trick in the book to prevent it from happening. And by dirty tricks I mean things like deliberately designing their apps to be incompatible with ReactOS, using undocumented API commands in their apps, and continually changing API commands to make it hard for clone OS developers to keep up. There is convincing evidence they pulled this type of crap when DRDOS started to threaten MSDOS's market dominance.

[Grasshopper]

It is amazing that they've gotten it to work this well, but my guess is they'll never fully get directx support simulated.  Dx gets info on a card based on the driver, so unless they perfectly re-create every single driver for every single video card, it'd be a crap-shoot as to if your card would work.  Think linux hardware support but even worse.

I can only assume from comments like this that you haven't actually used Linux for at least five years.

There are still a number of issues preventing Linux from becoming a viable mainstream alternative to Windows but hardware support isn't one of them. Indeed, graphics cards are particularly well supported. These days the graphics card market is dominated by only two players - Nvidia and ATI, and they both produce Linux drivers.

And elvis, in a cab why wouldn't you want windows?  You have pc games, fes that don't look like crap and 20 times more emulators to play with. 

Well let's see, you might not want to support a company that has an unhealthy monopoly over the PC OS market (a monopoly which industry regulators seem unwilling or unable to do anything about), and you might want to avoid spending $100 unnecessarily. There are several other reasons as well, but these will do for starters.

[IG-88]

I guess the main reason I was thinking along these lines was the $$ issue also. I hate to use bootleg copies of MS if I don't have too.  I do like the windows "environment" as it were, but I get sick of MS bull***t sometimes.

And I'll have to agree with Youki, from what I was able to garner from the ReactOS website alot of drivers and hardware is already supported. I guess maybe I should just try it out and see how it work 'eh? Would anybody be interested in how it goes?

[IG-88]

1) React is highly experimental.  Do not expect stallar performance from it.

2) In a cab, why would you want a desktop system?  FreeDOS and/or Linux are perfectly usable alternatives, both of which are a $0 outlay, and both will give superior performance over React.

Linux is an option also. I've been looking at DSL too. But as far as FreeDos goes, forget it. I can't stand DOS anything.

I had Joymonkey working on a modified version of Fraggal's boot cd but he is so busy that he can't get to it. Would someone here be willing to modify it? What I have are several old pentiums sitting around that I wanted to put just classics on. I'd be willing to pay.

[Howard_Casto]

It is amazing that they've gotten it to work this well, but my guess is they'll never fully get directx support simulated.  Dx gets info on a card based on the driver, so unless they perfectly re-create every single driver for every single video card, it'd be a crap-shoot as to if your card would work.  Think linux hardware support but even worse.

I can only assume from comments like this that you haven't actually used Linux for at least five years.

There are still a number of issues preventing Linux from becoming a viable mainstream alternative to Windows but hardware support isn't one of them. Indeed, graphics cards are particularly well supported. These days the graphics card market is dominated by only two players - Nvidia and ATI, and they both produce Linux drivers.

And elvis, in a cab why wouldn't you want windows?  You have pc games, fes that don't look like crap and 20 times more emulators to play with. 

Well let's see, you might not want to support a company that has an unhealthy monopoly over the PC OS market (a monopoly which industry regulators seem unwilling or unable to do anything about), and you might want to avoid spending $100 unnecessarily. There are several other reasons as well, but these will do for starters.

Nope I try linux once in a while just to quiet the linux fanboys like you.  Sure there is driver support in that you can actually have the card show up and display video, but that's about it.  the hardware acceleration of a card is seldom used to it's fullest, partly due to the fact that hwaccel in linux is virtually non-existant and partly because the drivers don't "show" all the things the card can do in terms of hwaccel. 

Yeah it's a real unhealthy monopoloy.  Before windows came to the scene there was basically only one home computer company (apple) and you were expected to use their apps and only there apps with their hardware and only their hardware.  You were also expected to play around 3-5k for even the most basic of systems. 

Post windows there are more pc manufacturers then you can shake a stick at, pcs are affordable to all.  You actually have a choice in your hardware and software now and psuedo useful oses like linux were allowed to flourish due to the cheap hardware that is SOLEY available due to m$'s deal with the x86 clones so many years ago. 

Let's not bite the hand that feeds you.  M$ is an unhealthy monopoly like at&t was.  AT&T wasn't a monopoly, it was the first frikkin phone company to speak of.  They remained a monopoly for as long as they did because no one could offer the services they had.  Not only the operators and equiptment, but the wonderful infrastructure they spent half a cantury building.  M$ was the same way, they were on top not because companies were unwilling to fight them, but because they had the money, resources and required might to actually work with hardware and software developers to give them the tools they need. 

See the fact of the matter is, m$ really isn't a monopoly anymore.  They were in the late 90's but you can't ague that point now.  The thing is it still seems like a monopoly because, quite frankly, the alternatives out there suck, both for non-pc-elite consumer who just wants it to run and the hardware vendor that wants to ship their computer with a os that people will be able to use easily.

If you are rich you have two choices, a mac or a pc running windows.  If you are the average consumer with a budget, you really only have one, a pc running windows.  Not because it is the only choice out there, but because it is the only practical choice out there.

You want to see what computing today would be like without m$, go look at mac os9 and the hardware available at that time for it (basically three over-priced pcs with no upgrades). 


But that isn't what this thread is about, it just seems that whenever someone asks for help with an os around here the m$ haters crawl out of the woodwork and have to make a snide comment.  I'm just defending the only viable os choice for the average consumer becuase, apparently, on one else is willing to do so. 

Getting back to the topic at hand... if what youki says is correct there may be hope for this os yet.  I don't think it is going to be there anytime soon, afterall it can't even run flash yet so dx is WAAAY beyond it's scope currently.  But eventually, maybe.  The open-source aspect is nice too.  I could see one of us stripping it down to nothing but a dos-like environment that runs 32 bit windows apps. 

[youki]

I won't enter in the debate Windows vs Linux ...  but i think that unfortunaly (because i don't really like M$ attitude) , Windows is (at this point in time) the best choice for average users. (not because Windows is better than linux (or inversly) , but just because is the most commun and the easiest to find software, hardware, documentation..etc..etc).  And Honnestly , I think XP is very good. (I was not always the case with M$ os...)

But something Hower said  i disagree:

Yeah it's a real unhealthy monopoloy.  Before windows came to the scene there was basically only one home computer company (apple) and you were expected to use their apps and only there apps with their hardware and only their hardware.  You were also expected to play around 3-5k for even the most basic of systems. 

I don't really know if the U.S. , but at least in Europe, before PC/Windows came , we have tons of choice in term of home computer and even too much choice.   In the 80's  we had machine like Commodore 64, Atari XL, Amstrad CPC, BBC Accorn, Oric , Lansay, MSX , Dragon, Thomson , Alice, Lazer, Victor...etc..etc... and of course Apple.  Ok most of them diseapeared quickly.

But in 90's  (just before windows 3.0 really come and change the world) , we had  mainly Atari St , Commodore Amiga .. in Europe it was a huge success for that wonderfull machines.  We had even some "Compatible" Atari ST.
That machines was far better than PC at this time. But due to bad marketing and positionning and other things ... they diseapeared .. and now...we have that we have.

[Howard_Casto]

You can't count pre-gui pcs because let's face it, to the home user a pre-guied pc was an over-priced novelty.

When the mac classic came out and the first real gui was introduced is when computer useage stopped being a novelty and started to go mainstream.  All the other computers at the time were glorified toys compared to what apple had to offer.   

Acorn would be the exception, but that system went over as well as beOs. 

I know people are really fond of some of those older systems but atari computers were computers like a speak and spell is a word processor.    And despite that fact that they were such terrible machines (and I would go so far as to say terrible for the time too) they were very highly priced for what you got.  They just didn't seem highly priced because the apple pcs of the day cost that much more.  They were fun, you could write little bits of code to make them beep or make a pong game, but they did little more than that. 

Like it or not, by the time the gui was a given in computing it was down to macs and pcs. If macs would have won our computers today would be 1/5th as powerful and 5 times as expensive.  And that's not because apple makes bad stuff, it is because their marketing strategy has always been to hold back new tech until the current tech stops selling and to hold exclusive hardware contracts so that only they make the hardware and thus only they can set the price.  Also they design their hardware so that only their software is fully compatible with it.(like itunes and all mac oses prior to X) Wait a second... which one is the monopoly again? 

I think I've proven my point. 

You really only had two choices.  Be thankful m$ won. 

And something youki said holds true... it's not really about which os is the "best", it is about which company, and as a result, which os, can give you the most.  That has always been m$ since the instant windows 3.0 came out. 

Going back to my At&T analogy, although I personally don't have a problem with linux, you can compare linux to one of those jerkwad third party phone companies that sprung up after the goverment broke it up.  At&t literally ran the phone lines.  They invented the technology.  They spent billions of dollars literally making a phone system a necessity in every single home.  Now some company that didn't do any of the heavy lifting gets to use at&t's phone lines and at&t's phone technology virtually for free!  How is that a fair system?  M$'s "big deal" with both ibm and the ibm clones, and the clause that forced ibm to allow the clones to exist is what saved the pc market.  We have cheap, x86 hardware soley because of m$'s 10+ years or tireless service.  Forget the os, throw the os out the window.  M$ made that pc you are running linux on possible.  It was directly because of them.  Now people are calling them a monopoly because other companies are jealous of their success. 

Nobody was complaining when they single-handedly built the home computing industry from the ground up and made the pc a staple for the home. Just like nobody complained when at&t made it possible to call anyone in the united states by literally running the lines, but once all the lines were up and other wanna be phone companies said "hey how come I can't make any money?" so people started calling monopoly on them. 

I don't think m$'s "attitude" should even fall into the equation.  I'd rather hire a jerk that gets the job done than a nice guy that can't. 

Evil has it's place, as do some monopolies. 

M$ isn't one, I've already established that earlier.  But even when they were, they got the job done better than anyone else could so it didn't matter.

I don't want people to get the wrong idea.  I don't think windows is the superior os, I think m$ is the superior company.  If people would look beyond the software and look at the things that they really did for the computing industry, they might see it that way as well.

And I'm not even down-playing linux and this new windows clone.  I hope they become extremely successful.  But don't even use m$'s attitude as an excuse to jump ship unless you are one of those ungrateful types.  M$'s killer, take no prisoners, it's my way or the highway, attituse is exactly what got all of the hardware (and eventually third party software) vendors organized and on the same page. Imagine a world where if you switched computer manufacturers upon upgrading, all of your software won't work and thus you have to buy all-new versions.  That is what computing was like prior to m$.   M$ said "no, you guys are gonna get along and like it, or else you don't get to use our stuff." Thus you get more choices, thus things are cheaper, thus we all win. 

[youki]

When the mac classic came out and the first real gui was introduced is when computer useage stopped being a novelty and started to go mainstream.  All the other computers at the time were glorified toys compared to what apple had to offer.

In 1984 when the first Mac 128  come it was true. Despite the fact that this computer was not really usable. To much bugged, the OS was coded in Pascal ,  was terribly slow.  And ton of other problems.
the Mac classic was not the first computer with a real gui introduced.  I think the first one was the Apple Lisa. (but no success for that one).

But in 1985-86  , when Atari St (nicknamed Jackintosh... by reference to Jack Tramiel) and Amiga 1000  was introduced , it was different . These computer was most powerfull than the Macs , better GUI (for the amiga) , and lot of cheaper than a Macintosh.  The Atari ST even becames very quickly compatible with Macintosh via really good emulators (Magic Sack, Aladin, and another one i forgot the name).  Atari St in europe took lot of part of market on Apple in PAO (document publishing sofware) domain  , and Music composition (due to his midi interface).  The Amiga took the market of Video software.  That machines was predominant at this time. But bad marketing and as you said for Apple, "their marketing strategy has always been to hold back new tech until the current tech stops selling "  and bad company management make them diseapear... Giving the open way to PC Compatible and M$ .  Apple survives in a first time thanks to  the PAO (don't know the name in English... Document Pusblishing sofware) where it was far better than PC software...  and then later ... it survived because M$ injected money in Apple! (i think M$ took 15% of Apple company) to not be accusated for Monopole. M$ must keep his last competitor Alive!

But you're  right,  M$ really did good thing in term software , but it 's a pity that due to a lack of competitor they impose their idea.  I think diversity is a good thing to have new concept, new idea and to be "open". Now , the world of Computer software is too close minded. i think.  And even worst when somebody else have an idea , They try to take it for their profit. (or sometime simply kill it).   Look for instance the case of the JAVA  world, in a first time they didn't believe in it.  Then they tried to take control of it . (Visual J++ and the introduction of M$ Specifics things) , and now as the previous attempt failed , they made  .NET  .   .NET is in the concept 90% similar  to what we can find in JAVA world (J2EE etc...)...    Instead of copying an idea , i would prefer they tried to do something new , inovative ...   It is the kind of Attitude i don't like.

[Grasshopper]

Howard, you've said so much I disagree with it's hard to know where to start.

First of all your ridiculous assertion that m$ hasn't had a monopoly since the late 90s. WTF!! Have you been in a computer store recently? 99.9% of all the software sold requires a version of Windows to run. How you can deny that isn't an unhealthy monopoly is beyond me.

And the fact that PC clones exist isn't something that M$ can take credit for. It's basically down to IBM's complacency and incompetence. If they'd ensured they fully controlled their OS instead of farming out development to M$ (or just bought out M$), and shipped their machines with MSDOS partly in ROM instead of a simple BIOS then things might have turned out very differently. M$ was simply in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the situation. The way you describe it, you'd think M$ had opened up the hardware market single handedly as an act of charity.

Actually by bringing up PC clone hardware you inadvertently undermine your position. The astonishing rate of development in PC hardware shows what can be achieved when there is a genuinely competitive market. Commercial computer software hasn't increased in quality or decreased in price at anything like the same rate and I would argue this is at least partly due to the stranglehold that M$ has over the market.

I'm not buying into your theory that without M$ we'd all be using Apple Macs. There were plenty of other excellent alternatives in the 80s. Indeed, it wasn't until Windows 95 came out that M$ finally caught up with what Atari, Commodore and Acorn had been offering 10 years earlier. It's depressing how many innovative machines, OSes, and applications have been crushed by the M$ juggernaut over the years.

And I'm not singling out M$ as being the only unscrupulous company out there. If Apple, Commodore etc had found themselves in M$'s position they would probably have behaved in exactly the same way. That's what companies do in a capitalist economy. They are essentially amoral money making machines and the only thing that keeps them in check (at least when the system works) is competition. The real villians are the industry regulators who are unwilling or unable to do anything about what is one of the most blatant (and damaging) monopolies of recent times.

[IG-88]

Um...anyway, if anyone still cares. A nice fellow on the ReactOS forums, a moderator names Jaix, has informed me that he did get it to run once but then no more. He said he will try and do some debugging on it when he gets time. I'll post again when I hear more.