Windows-clone?

[Chaky]

Funny thing... It never occurred to me to google "free windows-clone OS" keywords...well, whaddayaknow, there is hope that Micro$oft will reconsider that "thy shall install only once" OEM-crap-policy. Maybe even a couple of free-bees? If Bill Gates was dead he'd be turning around in his grave. Maybe his grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-children will NOT be financially well-situated.

I think that I might be out-of-touch with OS scene lately. I don't know how new this ReactOS really is, but I'm giving up on windows, and this baby looks just perfect.

Did any of you guys had any experience with it?

They claim that it is windows competible.

I wonder how long they'll last before mighty MS storms in.

P.S.
I give them 6 months.

[WolfPack]

Well, I remember reading about [search]ReactOS[/search] in a Daniweb blog a couple of months back. I don't think Microsoft can sue it because they are taking steps so that they do not use any illegal means to develop this OS. And since it has been around for 10 years, I do not think it has got anything to worry about along those lines. That said, I am not a legal expert in these things, so there may be other issues that need to be addressed. But whether it will make huge dent in the Microsoft OS market share remains to be seen. Honestly I do not think so.

[jbennet]

its been going since 1997 and they recently completed a full code audit so people could check they didnt steal windows code (which is a dumb idea as its opensource so MS could just check) so no i think that:

by the time vista takes hold (2009) i think well have full Win95 compatibility
by the time fiji (vistas sucessor) (2012) : well have full NT4 / 98 compatibility
by the time vienna (fijis sucessor) (2017): well have full 2K / XP compatibility

basically i think we need to crank it up a notch guys :) cos by then welll all be like 30

['Stein]

Agreed completely. It reminds me of Win95. ;)

Oh, and for the record, another name of Fiji (Vista's sucessor) is Blackcomb.

[jwenting]

That's why they won't last (at least not as a VIABLE alternative ;) ).
Reminds me of Lindows, who tried the same and were stupid enough to get themselves indicted for trademark infringement in the process.

And if these kids claim openly to be a Windows clone, they could face the same fate if they ever get their act together and produce something that's less than a decade behind the times.

[mattyd]

basically i think we need to crank it up a notch guys :) cos by then welll all be like 30

LOL, well I had betterreally "crank it up" then-- I am well over 30.
:-|:cheesy:

[Chaky]

Microsoft still charges $20 for MS-DOS 6.22.

BTW, I'm sure MS will think of something to sue for.

[jbennet]

by the way, if MS shut down ReactOS then WINE (ReactOS uses wine API and libs to run widnows apps) will die out meaning Linux will suffer bigtime as no newbs willl be able to run windows apps

reactos seem to be treading carefully enough IMHO as they have done the audit and have an interesting article on thier site saying that they comply with the windows EULA by reverse engineering in a certain way

[Mushy-pea]

I've tried version 0.3 (alpha). Average uptime: 5 to 10 minutes. No, I'm not joking. Somtimes it would die after a specific event, other times it would just randomly bomb out for no apparent reason. Then it's the Black Screen of Death (not even an exception code). It crashed during the install a couple of times too. which is never a good sign.

I installed it on a 1.3 GHz AMD (original Athlon) system that I've sold now. Maybe it was some kind of incompatability with the AMD chip I was using, but after ten years you'd think they would have got on top of things like that. Unununium is my favourite OS project, so I've joined the development team. It's got no kernel. I'd like to see someone try and sue those guys for stealing others ideas :lol: .

Steven.

[jwenting]

If it uses wine it's hopeless. Wine is fundamentally broken and extremely incomplete.

[John A]

If Bill Gates was dead he'd be turning around in his grave. Maybe his ...grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-children will NOT be financially well-situated.

Nope -- Bill Gates has said that he wants the money to be given to charity; he doesn't want his grandkids enjoying riches they didn't earn.I wonder how long they'll last before mighty MS storms in.If it uses wine it's hopeless. Wine is fundamentally broken and extremely incomplete.
ReactOS has too many things wrong with it: it's so buggy it's barely useable, they're relying on Wine for Windows application support, and we all know how bad that is, and the interface is as ugly as Win95. So, I don't think that Microsoft will be suing anytime soon.

Probably, the best way to run Windows apps open-source right now is to get yourself a good Linux distro and install it and Wine and try your luck with that, as using ReactOS certainly isn't going to gain you any more compatibility, ease-of-use, or reliability.

[jbennet]

yeah, gates is giving like 80% of it to AIDS charities and his kids are gettuing less then 3% - rest goes to lawyers, banks etc.... as well as a few misc. charities

[Ancient Dragon]

Bill & Milenda Gates Foundation , like the Rockefeller Foundation , is a corporation set up to do nothing but give money away and to make the world a better place for all of us to live in. People who are filthy rich like that have an obligation to use their welth for the betterment of mankind. And I think both Gates and Rockefellers are doing their fair share.

[Chaky]

Bill Gates is still making up all the excuses to charge once more for something already purchased. And that's pure arrogance.

MS is setting the OS standard for PCs and they are CHANGING IT every few years. Not that the current OS cant's do things future OSes can, but for the soul reason of selling something already sold. Purely because there is no wear-and-tear with software. Only REAL change that is reasonable is 16 bit to 32 bit, 32 bit to 64 bit and so. But that doesn't occur often enough for MS to make billions.
If they are gonna make money on software in general, like with MS Office or MS made video-games, that's something different, but with monopoly on OSes this kind of behavior is purely arrogant and greedy. Those two characteristics are contradictory of image that they are trying to make with charities.

Don't get me wrong, I am 100% pro-charity and I think that it is a good thing that he is giving up so much money, but when I think of today's necessity for PCs in business and every day life, and MS behavior with OS licensing, I can't find any words of recommendation for him.

[WolfPack]

Why are you saying that making money from MS Office is okay and making money from the OS is not? I don't see any difference in them as they both are software, and there is no wear and tear in either of then.

[Chaky]

OS is not software in a same sense as MS Office or Corel Draw is. With software like Corel Draw you can DO something. You can produce something that you need for your business. With OS you can't do squat. It is base software and it is NEEDED by windows based software, so if you want to do ANYTHING with, say $2000 gear and $30000 AutoCAD, or $50 video-game, you need to chip in $150 royalty to MS. It is as trivial as the hardware drivers. Imagine paying $150 for each and every driver you have.

Other thing:
If they make OS with flaws (and they do), and they charge money for it (and they do), they should fix any flaw there is. Sure, they are releasing quite bit of fixes (remember, KBs have 6 digit numbers), why all the sudden Vista? Or why XP in the first place? Or NT 4? Or Me? Or 98? Or 95?

My point of view is: OS is OS. XP has same meaning as Vista or NT4.

My point here is: Why do I have to pay for OS that I've already paid for? Several times!

Some basic rules of commerce:
- If it is sold, then it is product.
- If it is a product, then I expect some guarantee for it.
- If XP is so badly designed that Vista or whatever HAS TO replace it, then it is official declaration on behalf of MS that XP is BAD PRODUCT and it needs to be replaced. It is a sort of global recall.
- If something I paid for $150 is worthless, I want my money back and NOT pay again (and again, and again...) to have the OS again (and again, and again...) that other software, that I want to use, will (and, according to MS, must) blindly follow.

Any flaw with OS can be corrected. Any news in the hardware world can be implemented in existing OS. It is the foundation for other PRODUCTIVE software that ppl use to create something and make money off it. And not other way around.

And now they say :"Oh, look how nice we are, we're giving away billions of US Dollars that we made by fraud and monopoly."
If they didn't make so much immoral profits off the oridinary people's necessity, ordinary people like you and me would live a better life and WE would be ones giving money to the charity organizations.

[~s.o.s~]

Hehe so why do you think those illegal groups who rip softwares are born..because of the very reason Chaky is stating. I also think that the base or the foundation should be made free or alteast a bit cheap so that each and every person can afford it.

The reason I think MS charges money for OS is that they think if OS were given out free to people they would end up using Open Source replacements for all MS products and they would be like going down.
THe main reason MS succeeds is that most of the people who buy PC's are ignorant of the fact that there is something like *Free* OS -- Linux and free as in beer. Most of the people are afraid to experiment and try out non MS products lest something should go wrong.
THe bottom line is that MS thrives purely due to publicity and excellent marketing and its contacts and more importantly the ignorance of the masses. The momet it will start to dawn on people what exactly Open Source is and there is world beyond MS, MS would have to do some deep thinking.

[Ancient Dragon]

Nobody said you have to buy Microsoft operating systems. You are free to install any operating system you wish, whether it is one of the free versions of *nix or something else. If you don't like Microsoft then buy a MAC.

>>My point here is: Why do I have to pay for OS that I've already paid for? Several times

That is not true. When you upgraded from Windows 2000 to XP you bought a new operating system. XP is not the same os as W2K. And W2K is not the same as NT 4.0. They are all different. Nobody says you have to buy those new versions of the os.

And I hear Vista will be obsolete before it hits the store shelves. Microsoft is already working on another os.

[WolfPack]

OS is not software in a same sense as MS Office or Corel Draw is. With software like Corel Draw you can DO something. You can produce something that you need for your business. With OS you can't do squat. It is base software and it is NEEDED by windows based software, so if you want to do ANYTHING with, say $2000 gear and $30000 AutoCAD, or $50 video-game, you need to chip in $150 royalty to MS. It is as trivial as the hardware drivers. Imagine paying $150 for each and every driver you have.

Don't you get the driver CD when you are buying a piece of hardware? So don't you think that the cost of the driver is also included for the price that you paid for the hardware? Okay it is not $150, but it has a price right?Other thing:
If they make OS with flaws (and they do), and they charge money for it (and they do), they should fix any flaw there is. Sure, they are releasing quite bit of fixes (remember, KBs have 6 digit numbers), why all the sudden Vista? Or why XP in the first place? Or NT 4? Or Me? Or 98? Or 95?

My point of view is: OS is OS. XP has same meaning as Vista or NT4.
Well, if you go back in time, that would mean DOS 1.0 is also the same as Vista? You have to realize that developments in technology also requires you to change your OS. The thing is there are a lot of differences in how the kernel is designed in all those versions of Windows. You can't say a particular design is faulty. Although it may be prone to faults, sometimes it is essential for particular applications. I have heard that Windows 98 was a popular OS as a gaming platform, and users did not upgrade to Windows NT because it didnt allow access to the lower level graphics commands which was essential for some games to perform correctly.
My point here is: Why do I have to pay for OS that I've already paid for? Several times!
Who says you have to? If you can do now, what you wanted to do when you first bought your computer, and you are still using the same set of software you were using then, why would you want to upgrade? Just because there is a new design of a car in the market doesnt mean you have to discard your old vehicle and go buy the new one. You can't expect that General Motors will take back your old car and give you one of the new design too. Some basic rules of commerce:
- If it is sold, then it is product.
- If it is a product, then I expect some guarantee for it.
agreed. - If XP is so badly designed that Vista or whatever HAS TO replace it, then it is official declaration on behalf of MS that XP is BAD PRODUCT and it needs to be replaced. It is a sort of global recall.
I don't think XP is badly designed. It is one of the best OSes that I have ever used. Much better than 98, Me ,2000 and although Linux lovers may get a bit hurt, much better than the countless *IX distros I have used. I don't see anyone waiting until Vista is released just because XP is a poor design. I have infact read that the main competitor for Windows Vista is infact Windows XP. Microsoft has realized that people are satisfied with XP and they won't be seeing a lot of upgrades from XP to Vista. MS will be trying to get Vista pre-installed with the new computers that are sold from now on, but that is the same as selling it with XP. The user will be paying for the OS anyway.- If something I paid for $150 is worthless, I want my money back and NOT pay again (and again, and again...) to have the OS again (and again, and again...) that other software, that I want to use, will (and, according to MS, must) blindly follow.What you buy now may become worthless in the future. That happens usually with advancement of technology and as new softawre concepts like multi threading, networking are introduced, OSes that do not support them may get worthless. They will provide corrections for bugs that are in the existing features, but new features won't be free.Any flaw with OS can be corrected. Any news in the hardware world can be implemented in existing OS. It is the foundation for other PRODUCTIVE software that ppl use to create something and make money off it. And not other way around.
Yes. Any "flaw" can and should be corrected. I think MS is doing that as you pointed out. But not all new features of an OS can be implemented just by using a patch. And you can't expect a new feature to be free. When DOS 1.0 was introduced, multi-tasking in a single user environment was considered a joke. Adding multi-tasking is a new feature, and surely you can't expect that to be free do you? So a new member of the Windows family had to be introduced at a price.

[jwenting]

I've heard all those piracy arguments before Chaky, and they're all complete ########.

Try running a computer without an operating system and see what all the "nothing" an OS does really is.