About ReactOS 0.4

[justincase]

You mean Word 2010?
Word 2007 is on the list, but the version of Word that got into the top three was Word 2010 (according to this page.)

[ctasan]

Yeah, I meant it.

But due to service pack level, we can't run any Office 2010 app because while our level is W2K3 SP1, Office 2010 requires SP2. Any solutions for this?

[EmuandCo]

Fixing the functions in the kernel which are missing for S2 and then change it ^^

[vicmarcal]

Yeah, I meant it.

But due to service pack level, we can't run any Office 2010 app because while our level is W2K3 SP1, Office 2010 requires SP2. Any solutions for this?

Easy: Faking it to show ourselves as SP2 when the installer is being executed. Installer just does a "let's check if they have SP2 installed or not" however the app doesn't need any SP2

[Alahndro]

I hope I can click on the "Update Driver" button while viewing a device's properties in Device Manager.

I recomend you to retry this now! (I promise you won't be disapointed again )

[Pi_User5]

I recomend you to retry this now! (I promise you won't be disapointed again )

It finally works with the 0.3.17RC.

[ctasan]

Well, I want to say another thing.

Implementing Wine's Win32 subsystem, Arwinss or whatever must be completed.

Why? You say Wine has better compatibility at the moment. If we implement kernel mode Wine including subsystems we will have finished the biggest task: program compatibility. After that we can concentrate at other tasks.

It will be a legend. ReactOS will be able to run thousands of programs.

[EmuandCo]

When we do that, we have compatibility, yeah. But one flaw will be real then. The internal structure is all but Windows compatible or even sort of similar to it. We risk to never be able to support any complex GFX drivers at all. arwinss is a biiig wrapper code around a user mode win32k subsystem.

[Oddjob64]

Fixing the functions in the kernel which are missing for S2 and then change it ^^

Easy: Faking it to show ourselves as SP2 when the installer is being executed. Installer just does a "let's check if they have SP2 installed or not" however the app doesn't need any SP2

I guess these are the 2 approaches to supporting SP2 in a nutshell.

[ctasan]

When we do that, we have compatibility, yeah. But one flaw will be real then. The internal structure is all but Windows compatible or even sort of similar to it. We risk to never be able to support any complex GFX drivers at all. arwinss is a biiig wrapper code around a user mode win32k subsystem.

Well, why is there a risk if we apply arwinss?

And before 0.4.0, I believe we have to support a wide range of applications, like Wine. Okay, kernel and Win32ss fixes/improvements are being applied but process is slow. Really. With rewriting Wine's Win32 for kernel mode or doing another thing we may earn a big time and concrentrate on other important thing.

[Black_Fox]

ARWINSS is already available here, you can build the branch right away.
EDIT: IIRC we're already taking as much as possible from Wine, but a lot of kernel stuff Wine doesn't implement at all because it is already provided by Linux kernel. So ReactOS has to do it from scratch, because Linux code doesn't help.

[EmuandCo]

You can't just "rewrite" Wine's win32k. You can steal some stuff and add it to our system, yes. (Already done) But 1:1 copying of most components is "possible" is you completely dump the internal structure the original has. That will work, but as soon as we want to support stuff like drivers, it can and will cause problems.

[PurpleGurl]

Well, why is there a risk if we apply arwinss?

And before 0.4.0, I believe we have to support a wide range of applications, like Wine. Okay, kernel and Win32ss fixes/improvements are being applied but process is slow. Really. With rewriting Wine's Win32 for kernel mode or doing another thing we may earn a big time and concrentrate on other important thing.

That would be a step backwards in terms of driver compatibility. We shouldn't have to write drivers if we can run the ones vendors intend for use with Windows. The problem with ARWINSS is that what drivers will you use? It is more Linux-like, so Windows drivers won't work, and it is not enough like Linux to allow Linux drivers to work. It isn't just about running software. If that were the case, sure, use ARWINSS as the kernel. The kernel compatibility will have to be done sooner or later, so might as well keep working on it now.

This is pretty much a dead horse, since it has been covered so many times already. I've tossed ideas around such as "de-wrapping" ARWINSS or having a dual-mode kernel, but the problem with either is that it would take more time than doing it right the first time. I've done similar to unwrapping code that has a wrapper around it, and it isn't fun or easy. And a dual-mode approach would just be a huge messy hack and would introduce new problems and not even perform that well. Maybe if there were just a couple of missing APIs, someone could maybe flatten the code out to dig out those functions, even if code may initially be duplicated, and then once it is in the trunk, it could be simplified and consolidated further. Still that would take time and not be all that simple of an approach.

So the developers are on the right track. I know, it is easy to get impatient, but doing it in what seems to be the hard way may actually take less time in the long run.

[Webunny]

Fixing the functions in the kernel which are missing for S2 and then change it ^^

Easy: Faking it to show ourselves as SP2 when the installer is being executed. Installer just does a "let's check if they have SP2 installed or not" however the app doesn't need any SP2

I guess these are the 2 approaches to supporting SP2 in a nutshell.

Both are viable options.

In the long run, total compatibility with, in this case, SP2 is, of course, best. But for the shorter run, it's much more easier and much faster to just 'act' as if it's SP2. Just like office, you have a whole bunch of progs that check for 'SP2', but never actually use it. In all those instances, it doesn't really matter if nothing is there. For those that DO use things in SP2, well, those won't work (well), but then again, they would not with SP1 neither.

Also, nothing is prohibiting fixing all the functions, starting with creating stubs and then more and more actual functionality, afterwards. ROS itself, in a sense, is not 'completed' or 'fixed', and acts as something it is not. Nobody complains about that.

I think it's not bad to pretend it's SP2, it will add - de facto - a number of working progs to the list. And one can then try to complete it further, just like with SP1 and XP/ROS in general.

[ctasan]

Okay, when will 16-bit setup stubs support for installing 32-bit programs and Windows Installer will be added?