Windows XP SP1 + Server 2003 source code has apparently leaked - WARNING ! Your system have been encrypted by Rensenware !

[ditto]

Developers would get used to those systems, and when 2000 (and later XP) was released they had to rewrite lots of drivers and programs anyway.

But that's just it: developers didn't have to rewrite those programs. Win32 was the killer platform, and it didn't matter if the customer was running Win 95, XP or NT.

 

[billgates3]

But that's just it: developers didn't have to rewrite those programs. Win32 was the killer platform, and it didn't matter if the customer was running Win 95, XP or NT.

Hmmm. Well, at least the drivers must have been rewritten because they deal directly with the kernel. Also, if NT was fully compatible (due to the Win32 API) with older versions of Windows, would you really need to select compatibility profile (representing different versions of Windows) when running certain binaries?

 

[ditto]

Hmmm. Well, at least the drivers must have been rewritten because they deal directly with the kernel. Also, if NT was fully compatible (due to the Win32 API) with older versions of Windows, would you really need to select compatibility profile (representing different versions of Windows) when running certain binaries?

In the Windows 98 days there was a driver framework called WDM that allowed cross-platform drivers between NT and DOS-based OSes. If anything the compatibility profile settings show how commited to backwards support MS really is. But it's mainly to support stuff like accessing registry keys that are forbidden in later Windows versions. Most well written 32-bit programs from the Windows 95 days still run just fine on Windows 10. The ToastyTech guy even got Windows 1.0 apps that are nearly 40 years only to run on modern Windows.

I loathe Microsoft the company but the engineering behind Windows has been phenomenal.

 

[billgates3]

In the Windows 98 days there was a driver framework called WDM that allowed cross-platform drivers between NT and DOS-based OSes. If anything the compatibility profile settings show how commited to backwards support MS really is. But it's mainly to support stuff like accessing registry keys that are forbidden in later Windows versions. Most well written 32-bit programs from the Windows 95 days still run just fine on Windows 10. The ToastyTech guy even got Windows 1.0 apps that are nearly 40 years only to run on modern Windows.

I loathe Microsoft the company but the engineering behind Windows has been phenomenal.

Okay, so the compatibility profile stuff mainly deals with userland stuff like the registry and not the kernel? I thought it was some kind of emulation layer. Didn't know that WDM existed back then. Always fun to learn new things.

Although, I think Microsoft would've been more successful in the long run if they put all their energy into NT from the start. Developing an operating system is no small task, and it seems wasteful to dedicate many of their talented programmers to Win9x when they should've instead focused on making NT fully backwards compatible (earlier), and on improving that code base, adding features etc. I think that's what Apple did right with the transition to OS X. They immediately put all their focus on it, forcing third-party developers to simply port their programs to the new OS or go extinct. I think sometimes it's right to be an asshole, if it leads to better results.

Microsoft being "nice" to everyone seems to have resulted in a lower quality system, since they have to keep all the ancient bugs and bad design decisions that old programs depend on to run properly. Sure, it's backwards compatible and that's great, but it also runs like shit, so maybe it's not so great after all.

That's one of the things I like about Linux. They're not afraid to change things if it leads to better performance or stability. Other programs can adapt or die. To be honest, I think that's the way it should be.

If you just constantly babysit third-party developers and give them infinite leeway, then they're going to get lazy and everyone comes to expect you to remain compatible with their lousy code, rather than them fixing their code and making it run properly.

 

[Maurice Caine]

4chan dudebro just compiled Win2k3, groovy.

 

[Xarpho]

Okay, so the compatibility profile stuff mainly deals with userland stuff like the registry and not the kernel? I thought it was some kind of emulation layer. Didn't know that WDM existed back then. Always fun to learn new things.

Although, I think Microsoft would've been more successful in the long run if they put all their energy into NT from the start. Developing an operating system is no small task, and it seems wasteful to dedicate many of their talented programmers to Win9x when they should've instead focused on making NT fully backwards compatible (earlier), and on improving that code base, adding features etc. I think that's what Apple did right with the transition to OS X. They immediately put all their focus on it, forcing third-party developers to simply port their programs to the new OS or go extinct. I think sometimes it's right to be an asshole, if it leads to better results.

Microsoft being "nice" to everyone seems to have resulted in a lower quality system, since they have to keep all the ancient bugs and bad design decisions that old programs depend on to run properly. Sure, it's backwards compatible and that's great, but it also runs like shit, so maybe it's not so great after all.

That's one of the things I like about Linux. They're not afraid to change things if it leads to better performance or stability. Other programs can adapt or die. To be honest, I think that's the way it should be.

If you just constantly babysit third-party developers and give them infinite leeway, then they're going to get lazy and everyone comes to expect you to remain compatible with their lousy code, rather than them fixing their code and making it run properly.

I'm not sure about Apple's results being "better". Most of their whole philosophy is based on one person, Steve Jobs, who hated third party modifications and backwards compatibility. The Apple II was designed with expansion ports at Wozniak's insistence, but the Mac, his project, wasn't, and the original Macintosh 128k had no way of even upgrading the RAM (save for a programmer's backdoor that voided the warranty) and used proprietary ports for everything. Most of the "classic" Mac OS (pre-OS X) was hacked together over the years and could run most of the older programs (with some exceptions, mostly in the way it interacted with other programs or outdated system calls).

Most of the "modern" incompatibilities with Mac OS X have all been artificial to force upgrades, like hard coding the system to ban Rosetta or 32-bit applications.

 

[WinnieTheJew]

4chan's technology board is getting closer and closer having consistent "clean" builds of XP for IA32. Then real development can start on fixing and extending the existing code base. By the end of the year we might have AMD64 5.2 builds working. We've fixed some of the driver issues but I haven't checked back in about a week.

For anyone wondering if this will ever become a usable desktop OS, go ahead and install XP Pro 64-bit and see if it's usable as a daily driver (pro-tip: it's not). The 32-bit versions are doubly unusable because of 2GB per process RAM limit.

 

[Basil II]

The funniest part will be the endless tears of linux nerds when the entire fucking planet learns how to install an OS just for XP.

Sorry to ruin your party but there's zero chance that this is going to become a daily driver to anyone.

Considering the zoomer masses who don't know what XP is and the boomers who assume that new = better (not to mention most of them are way too retarded to install an operating system) this will be driver hell for pretty much all proprietary hardware and literally no one is gonna support this OS in their applications for obvious reasons.

Torvalds wins yet again.

 

[4str4staleatherbelt]

I hope the 4chan nerds will release a build that's up to date with the last WU update since the WU servers for XP and Vista aren't online anymore.

 

[XYZpdq]

Sorry to ruin your party but there's zero chance that this is going to become a daily driver to anyone.

Considering the zoomer masses who don't know what XP is and the boomers who assume that new = better (not to mention most of them are way too retarded to install an operating system) this will be driver hell for pretty much all proprietary hardware and literally no one is gonna support this OS in their applications for obvious reasons.

Torvalds wins yet again.

Phew, thank god you saved us from that joke.