Main > Software Forum

ReactOS

<< < (2/3) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on May 29, 2006, 05:08:01 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on May 29, 2006, 05:08:01 am ---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. 

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: elvis on May 29, 2006, 01:46:53 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: Grasshopper on May 29, 2006, 12:11:48 pm ---
--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on May 29, 2006, 05:08:01 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on May 29, 2006, 05:08:01 am ---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. 

--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---


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. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version