About ReactOS 0.4

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

justincase
Posts: 439
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:13 pm

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by justincase » Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:03 am

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.)
I reserve the right to ignore any portion of any post if I deem it not constructive or likely to cause the discussion to degenerate.

ctasan
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:02 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by ctasan » Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:28 am

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
Developer
Posts: 4356
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by EmuandCo » Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:35 am

Fixing the functions in the kernel which are missing for S2 and then change it ^^
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

vicmarcal
Test Team
Posts: 2732
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by vicmarcal » Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:56 pm

ctasan wrote: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 ;)
Image

Alahndro
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:04 pm

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by Alahndro » Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:57 pm

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 :D )

Pi_User5
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 4:18 am
Location: United States

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by Pi_User5 » Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:19 pm

I recomend you to retry this now! (I promise you won't be disapointed again :D )
It finally works with the 0.3.17RC. :)
I use ReactOS on real hardware. Will you? My Computers: https://www.reactos.org/wiki/PC_ROS_Rigs Go all the way to the bottom.

Image

ctasan
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:02 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by ctasan » Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:59 am

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
Developer
Posts: 4356
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by EmuandCo » Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:41 am

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.
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

Oddjob64
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:21 am

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by Oddjob64 » Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:53 am

EmuandCo wrote:Fixing the functions in the kernel which are missing for S2 and then change it ^^
vicmarcal wrote: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
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:02 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by ctasan » Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:45 pm

EmuandCo wrote: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
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Czechia

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by Black_Fox » Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:37 pm

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.
Last edited by Black_Fox on Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

EmuandCo
Developer
Posts: 4356
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Germany, Bavaria, Steinfeld
Contact:

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by EmuandCo » Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:49 pm

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.
Image
ReactOS is still in alpha stage, meaning it is not feature-complete and is recommended only for evaluation and testing purposes.

PurpleGurl
Posts: 1788
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:11 am
Location: USA

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by PurpleGurl » Sat Oct 25, 2014 1:53 am

ctasan wrote: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
Posts: 1201
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by Webunny » Sat Oct 25, 2014 2:08 am

Oddjob64 wrote:
EmuandCo wrote:Fixing the functions in the kernel which are missing for S2 and then change it ^^
vicmarcal wrote: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
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:02 pm
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Re: About ReactOS 0.4

Post by ctasan » Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:48 pm

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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DotBot [Crawler] and 3 guests