FreeWin

[ercanersoy]

Hello.

I have an idea. This idea has been mentioned by me: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=14747

But I don't tell this idea very well. Sorry for my bad English.

My idea is DOS based Microsoft Windows free software implementation. It named "FreeWin" by me.

FreeWin will be faster than ReactOS. Because, FreeWin will use DOS kernel. But, FreeWin won't be more secure than ReactOS.

FreeWin is useful for systems those don't need more security. It is the very good operating system for old x86 computers.

FreeWin will compatible Windows 1.x - Windows ME.

I don't start the project myself. Because, FreeWin will very big project as good as ReactOS. Maybe, FreeWin Project started under ReactOS Project.

Thanks for replies.

[EmuandCo]

Win9x is dead and completely obsolete, thats why ReactOS and it's NT base evolved from the FreeWin95 idea. Noone here will help you for that tbh.

[dizt3mp3r]

I think it is a great idea. OP I look forward to you completing it within the next 10-15 years with a good head of steam.

In the meantime use DosBox and Aura M3 and enjoy your 440K of free and available RAM.

Good luck to you, I think you'll need it.

[ercanersoy]

Win9x is dead and completely obsolete, thats why ReactOS and it's NT base evolved from the FreeWin95 idea. Noone here will help you for that tbh.

Yes, Win 9x is completely obsolote. But, DOS based Windows faster than NT architecture under the same conditions.

ReactOS based on similar Windows NT architecture. ReactOS kernel is microkernel. It is very good choice.

But, FreeWin will based on similar Win9x architecture. FreeWin kernel is monolithic kernel. It will faster and will using less resource than ReactOS.

I think it is a great idea. OP I look forward to you completing it within the next 10-15 years with a good head of steam.

In the meantime use DosBox and Aura M3 and enjoy your 440K of free and available RAM.

Good luck to you, I think you'll need it.

Thanks a lot.

I don't start myself this project. Because, I don't have much man power and I don't write kernel and Windows applications. If someone started this project, I'm trying DOS parts.

[Konata]

I can appreciate such a project, but there is really no point for it.

Speed doesn't matter, especially on modern hardware. And I don't mean "modern hardware is so fast you can't notice it", I mean that all the drivers you'd need are for NT and it's modern driver framework that is incompatible with 9x. 9x wouldn't have any of the hardware acceleration NT can make use of. Second, NT is more optimized than 9x. The scheduler and algorithms in modern Windows are far more advanced and intelligent than 9x's.

I'd really just look at the several projects out there that try to augment DOS into being slightly more modern, if you just want an open DOS-ish OS for old hardware. But I've said this before and I'll say it again, there's no point in having old hardware around, unless it's for historical purposes, in which case just put plain old DOS on it. If you're one of "those" people who prefer DOS to modern OSes, you should just check out TempleOS. I'm not kidding, it's a decent hobby OS if you've got a real hard-on for bare metal programming. Of course, it can't run on modern hardware because no UEFI support. Which is another downfall of 9x.

if you genuinely want to re-create 9x, that is a massive undertaking, even worse than recreating NT. There's far less documentation and it's more difficult to decompile and analyze. It's not really worth anyone's time. If you just want speed, I'd just make a real-time version of ReactOS' HAL.DLL.

[PurpleGurl]

I disagree on 9x being faster. I used 98SE for a good while, and one thing I hated was their latest explorer patch which broke things. Some reverted the patch or dropped older pre-patch files in, where others took pieces from Win 95 or Win ME in an attempt to stop the constant lockups. And I applied every tweak I knew of. Then I installed Windows 2000, and it felt much faster and seemed more stable. NT 5.x certainly got rid of the resource heap limitations. I mean, since parts of Win 9x were 16-bit underneath, that meant the heaps were limited to 64k. Those heaps were sometimes leaky too, so you'd notice the gauges for the resource heaps steadily declining with time...

[Konata]

I disagree on 9x being faster. I used 98SE for a good while, and one thing I hated was their latest explorer patch which broke things. Some reverted the patch or dropped older pre-patch files in, where others took pieces from Win 95 or Win ME in an attempt to stop the constant lockups. And I applied every tweak I knew of. Then I installed Windows 2000, and it felt much faster and seemed more stable. NT 5.x certainly got rid of the resource heap limitations. I mean, since parts of Win 9x were 16-bit underneath, that meant the heaps were limited to 64k. Those heaps were sometimes leaky too, so you'd notice the gauges for the resource heaps steadily declining with time...

That reminds me of another major (intended) flaw of 9x's design. Thunking.
That basically destroyed performance, and it's something NT doesn't need to do.

[ercanersoy]

FreeWin may be better than Win9x.

[EmuandCo]

And still is useless due to no existing drivers for anything.

[dizt3mp3r]

What is the point of this thread? Except to suck people in.

I'm going to start a thread titled "The earth is flat". You'll need to prove to me that it isn't.

[ercanersoy]

FreeWin will free. Free drivers may written.

In addition, I share a link for old drivers: http://www.oldapps.com/category/drivers

[dizt3mp3r]

Close the thread!

[EmuandCo]

This thread is useless and tries to get ppl leave us to join a project without any use. LOCKED