I agree wth Baldomero.. :) Remember this is a GPL peice of software here. After version 1.0, who knows what distro types of ROS all of us will be making. There will be a distros of ROS with lots of incorporated goodies, just like there is with GNU/Linux. :) I sincerely hope that ReactOS doesn't get...

with news of UT being somewhat playable it makes me think of someone needing to start a site (soon) ... www.reactoscompatible.com ... if you remember back in the day of NT4, they had a site ntcompatible.com (which is still around but almost pointless now), where they had a huge DB of user submission...

Inserting a message of "To correct this error, please turn off your pc, and turn it back on. If problem persists, then inspect hardware, or please be referred to the ROS forums". I hear too many times from Windows users, what they should do when they get a BSOD. It would be nice to put an...

For a local LAN, Windows (ReactOS) would be able to suffice, but for internet use serving, nothing beats good old Linux for stability, performance, and security. The real reason for making a "server" flavor of ROS would be to eliminate the INSANE licensing costs involved in having a genui...

An informative, yet non-stone-dead-boring Screen O' Death would be a welcomed change. Granted, I don't see BSOD much anymore, but still ....

Maybe a contest or something

Eversince i discovered computer networking i fell in love. I would dearly like to see ROS Desktop and Server modelled after Win2000's Domain Controller model (using LDAP, or NDS, or whatever). Again maximum compatiblity to allow for Windows clients would be nice, but ultimately I would like to get r...

Windows NT4 include offical DirectX5 but no higher version run on it! Old games work under NT4 - new not! Because that i find it real important that ReactOS 1 have full combitability to DirectX 5! Well, technically SP6 for NT4 updated NT4 to directX3 ... Later, a beta directx6 for NT4 was leaked (a...

I personally think a MMC type interface for the applets would rock.

I don't really care if it's HTML for the interface or not; though I do like the idea of being able to customize HTML interfaces for distributions for schools and the like ....

1. win32 (naturally)
2. win64
3. win16/DOS
4. linux

-> NT has limited support of posix and OS2 and so would be nice for backwards compatibility but in this day and age probably would not be essential and (just as a guess) wouldn't a linux subsystem inherently have some posix support in it?

I think a DOS machine and a WOW layer would be good to have. Not really necessary these days; but a definite plus. For example Win64 doesn't support WOW16 Of course, just because MS doesn't implement it doesn't mean it isn't possible. They don't implement a decent web browser but several people have...

Also, I would not find it acceptable to run Microsoft Windows 3.1 in a DOS box, as that would mean I would have to legally purchase a copy of MS-Windows 3.1 to run. That would defeat the point of using ReactOS which is to get rid of Microsoft products. Yes, and even if you have it, it would be a lo...

patchworks wrote:I think that a "SUGGESTIONS" section could be usefull...

This is just a silly question, but in a thread posted "Motivation thread" why do you post this? I would think creating a new thread would have been a better idea.

Also, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

ReactOS has awesome potential and is good so far! I hope the project continues!

I like it when boards have avatars that fit with a theme. Maybe some ReactOS explorer icons or something similar; but otherwise, I like having an avatar.

I'm so glad you guys got a "real" forum and works fine (it resizes just fine--I'm using firefox so I'm not sure about IE). It looks good. Hopefully we can avoid pointless "Linux sucks", "Windows sucks" and X "sucks" arguments. Those are very annoying. :roll: G...