0

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.

16
Contributors
51
Replies
53
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by crunchie
Featured Replies
  • 2

    I guess I owe some explanations. I have a temper and a rebel soul that sometimes gets wrongly interpreted. I tend to engage in debate quite passionately, but never in a negative prefix. If I had such negative thoughts and opinions, believe me, I wouldn't have bothered to post them … Read More

0

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.

0

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

0

Agreed completely. It reminds me of Win95. ;)

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

0

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.

0

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

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

0

Microsoft still charges $20 for MS-DOS 6.22.

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

0

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

0

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.

0

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.

0

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

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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

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

0

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.

I am sorry but I dont understand the logic in this. Care to explain a bit more?

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.

And usually something will go wrong. Remember these people who are afraid to "experiment" as you say are not geeks unlike us. They are non-techies but who contribute as much as we do to this world. They can be risk takers like enterpreneurs, who has other things to worry about than installing the next OS patch. So the easier they can get their work done, they go for it. For them time is the most important factor. Not hyperthreading or some other technical buzzword. They only want to browse internet, read and send emails. Maybe do some accounting. I know that the command line of Unix is ver yvery powerfull. But try reading email in Pine.

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.

Here is a another point of view.

In Japan almost all the comptuers come with a Windows OS pre-installed. maybe that is why MS is thriving. I have been to many computer stores, and all I see is computers installed with Windows XP. Never seen a computer pre-installed with Linux.

0

I am sorry but I dont understand the logic in this. Care to explain a bit more?

I meant that the main source of income imho for MS is the sale of its OS. If they made OS free then they would have to rely on the sale of their softwares and many people nowadays have come to know of Open Source softwares whose quality is touching the paid ones.
Eg. GIMP <-> Photoshop
MS Powerpoint <-> Impress etc.

And usually something will go wrong. Remember these people who are afraid to "experiment" as you say are not geeks unlike us. They are non-techies but who contribute as much as we do to this world. They can be risk takers like enterpreneurs, who has other things to worry about than installing the next OS patch. So the easier they can get their work done, they go for it. For them time is the most important factor. Not hyperthreading or some other technical buzzword. They only want to browse internet, read and send emails. Maybe do some accounting. I know that the command line of Unix is ver yvery powerfull. But try reading email in Pine.

I dont expect such people to know everything and by lack of knowledge I meant that if someone who knew his way around in Linux helps these people and sets them right when the *experiment and something goes wrong* life would be much easier for them.

By default we dont know anything, only by experimenting we learn it. Heck we didnt even know DOS from start but only under someones expert guidance or experimentation we come to know a lot about DOS, Win XP and what not.

Bottom line is that if people are ready to put in a bit of time and effort and if they get good help and guidance, they dont need to be geeks to turn to Linux.

In Japan almost all the comptuers come with a Windows OS pre-installed. maybe that is why MS is thriving. I have been to many computer stores, and all I see is computers installed with Windows XP. Never seen a computer pre-installed with Linux.

I aint a MS opponent and the reason I think each computer comes preinstalled with Windows is simple -- *its UI is intiutive*. Even if a kid starts experimenting he can double click on icons and get the thing to work. ON the other hand with Linux its the shell thingy, a lot of trouble setting up each and everything, knowledge of open source repositories to get the softwares they want etc etc...

But I think that Linux is changing. Easy interfaces, inbuilt packages which were not present previously and many other things are making the transition from Win to Linux an easy thing. We can optimisticallly hope that in then near future, computers will come packaged with Linux rather than windows ;)

Thank you.

0

Quick replies:

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

So are the anti-piracy arguments. Read the MS FAQs regarding hardware upgrade.

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

OS has no meaning without a software that needs that very OS to work. Therefore, OS is nothing without that software.

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?

- All drivers are free of charge. It is in the hardware manufacturer's interest that they remain free of charge. If you download driver for the hardware that you don't have, you won't be regarded as a pirate.

Well, if you go back in time, that would mean DOS 1.0 is also the same as Vista?

- MS DOS 1.0 did evolve into Windows ME. Only every stage of evolution was rigorously charged for. Windows NT 3.51 (followed by NT4, XP, Vista) are not related to the MS-DOS 1.0 - Windows ME. They are completely different architecture. And NOT genuine Microsoft design.

I have heard that Windows 98 was a popular OS as a gaming platform, and users did not upgrade to Windows NT because it didn't allow access to the lower level graphics commands which was essential for some games to perform correctly.

- DirectX drivers are originally based on Windows NT. Same concept of drivers are then transferred to the MS DOS based Windows branch (95, 98, ME). I repeat, NOT genuine Microsoft concept.

Just because there is a new design of a car in the market doesn't 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.

- More fitting metaphor for Microsoft Windows would be "the road for General Motors cars".

I don't think XP is badly designed. It is one of the best OSes that I have ever used.

- Then why is Vista being introduced? What is the message with Vista? ("Buy our brand-new OS!" that reads:"Our old OS isn't good for you!")
I know that XP is somewhat good OS, but why do I HAVE to buy Vista? Because I plan to use my PC, or whatever PC I will have within next 5 years or, God forbid, 10 years.

Mark my words: Within 5 to 10 years Windows XP will not be supported either by hardware (drivers to be exact) nor software (what new software can be installed on windows 3.11?). And why? Because Microsoft is setting the rules. Every couple of years new OS that is 90% copy/paste.

Hehe Chaky has managed to throw himself to the *wolves*

- But I fight like a lion.

0

But I fight like a lion.

Too many animals in here...:cheesy: Maybe we need some humans..

And btw you are under no obligation to buy whatever new OS MS puts in front of you. THey market their product to the world not to a single individual. THere are many ppl out there who are filthy rich and dont mind spending big bucks on the latest tech things as long as it makes them happpy. So problems with prev OS or shortcoming with them are not the only points you should be considering.

0

I know, I know.... they introduce new OS, but that OS is not necessarily predestined to complete success.
But, then again, with MS OSes being pre-installed on the vendor PCs, kind of paints the picture of MS behavior.

Edit:

Bottom line is: I've managed to make a hot thread. *crowd cheers*

0

Quick replies:
- All drivers are free of charge. It is in the hardware manufacturer's interest that they remain free of charge. If you download driver for the hardware that you don't have, you won't be regarded as a pirate.

If you haven't bought the hardware, why would you be downloading the driver?

- MS DOS 1.0 did evolve into Windows ME. Only every stage of evolution was rigorously charged for. Windows NT 3.51 (followed by NT4, XP, Vista) are not related to the MS-DOS 1.0 - Windows ME. They are completely different architecture. And NOT genuine Microsoft design.

- DirectX drivers are originally based on Windows NT. Same concept of drivers are then transferred to the MS DOS based Windows branch (95, 98, ME). I repeat, NOT genuine Microsoft concept.

- More fitting metaphor for Microsoft Windows would be "the road for General Motors cars".

It maybe my poor english, but I dont understand what you are trying to say here. How come that something not being a genuine microsoft concept keeps them from making money from it? And if it is a completely different architecture, then isn't it, as Dragon said, a different OS?

- Then why is Vista being introduced? What is the message with Vista? ("Buy our brand-new OS!" that reads:"Our old OS isn't good for you!")
I know that XP is somewhat good OS, but why do I HAVE to buy Vista? Because I plan to use my PC, or whatever PC I will have within next 5 years or, God forbid, 10 years.

Mark my words: Within 5 to 10 years Windows XP will not be supported either by hardware (drivers to be exact) nor software (what new software can be installed on windows 3.11?). And why? Because Microsoft is setting the rules. Every couple of years new OS that is 90% copy/paste.

The answer is you don't HAVE to buy Vista. Any organization will try to market its latest product even if it means it has to compete with its previous products. If you are satisfied with XP, stick to it. If you are not, then either try your luck with the next Windows OS or try a free OS. New software are not written for Windows 3.11 because new software use features not offered in Windows 3.11. Most people thought they needed the new features and went for the latest OSes. It is called market dynamics. Not a lot of people use Windows 3.11, and those who do are still using the same set of software that they wanted to use when they bought that OS. If they didnt want the new OS, why would they want the new software that use the new OSes features? And it would be impractical to write software that use multi threading but targeting a single threading OS. But remember there are software that still support Windows 98 and upwards. There are a lot of Windows 98 computer still in use, and there is a market for software that can run in those computers. It all boils down to the market. And if a a lot, and I mean almost all, of the present XP users decide to upgrade to Vista or other OS, the cost of manufacturing hardware and software, and the return on investment will decide whether Windows XP will be supported or not. If all the people decide to use a Linux distro, even then Windows XP wont be supported.

- But I fight like a lion.

Why do you have to turn every thread into a fight? :)

0

It maybe my poor english, but I dont understand what you are trying to say here. How come that something not being a genuine microsoft concept keeps them from making money from it? And if it is a completely different architecture, then isn't it, as Dragon said, a different OS?

He's saying that XP is DOS 1.0 and should therefore be free...
Of course that logic is fundamentally flawed. Even if it were true that XP is DOS 1.0 (there is in fact probably not a line of code from DOS 1.0 left and hasn't been since 1995 or so) that still wouldn't mean it has to be free.

But that the typical argument of the pirate, it "should" have been free so he's taking only what he should have gotten without payment and therefore he's "only punishing large greedy companies" and "it doesn't cost them anything anyway" (because "it should have been free" and "it didn't cost anything to them anyway").

0

He's saying that XP is DOS 1.0 and should therefore be free...
Of course that logic is fundamentally flawed. Even if it were true that XP is DOS 1.0 (there is in fact probably not a line of code from DOS 1.0 left and hasn't been since 1995 or so) that still wouldn't mean it has to be free.

But that the typical argument of the pirate, it "should" have been free so he's taking only what he should have gotten without payment and therefore he's "only punishing large greedy companies" and "it doesn't cost them anything anyway" (because "it should have been free" and "it didn't cost anything to them anyway").

I AM NOT A PIRATE!!

I have paid for all of my software. I demand that I have some usefullness longer than 3-4 years. Is that PIRACY?

Read my posts here and you'll see what am I talking about.

Have a nice life.

0

>>I demand that I have some usefullness longer than 3-4 years.
as we have said before, several times, you can still use MS-DOS version 1.0 if you want to, and I think there are still a few people who do. But you will have to upgrade the os to something newer if you want to run some of your favorite programs that you mentioned previously. There is no reason why you can't run Windows 2000 for the next 20 years if you do not plan to upgrade the programs you run on that os.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.