this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
32 points (97.1% liked)

Opensource

2128 readers
84 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

CreditsIcon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Why would you go with over ReactOS?

They are far closer to cloning Windows 95/98/2000.

[–] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

ReactOS is cloning NT, so the 2000 part of that is correct.

95/98/98se/ME are completely different beasts, even if they happen to share the same GUI.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I am well aware of the difference between 95/98 and 2000/XP. I actually used 95/98 and eventually switched to 2000 and then XP.

Turns out that ReactOS is indeed focused on turn of the millennium NT support. They say their target is Windows Server 2003.

I always thought that 95/98 era support was also a key goal due to he history of the project.

[–] lukecooperatus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Same reason why there are so many text editors that all do basically the same thing, I suppose. More options are not a bad idea, IMO. Maybe they'll do something different and interesting.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

A text editor is a whole different beast than cloning Windows 95/98/2000. I will note that ReactOS isn't simply building a compatibility layer, their end goal is to allow users to actually run unmodified driver binaries from that era to get hardware working.

[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago
[–] GolfNovemberUniform@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Waiting for Action Retro coverage now.

[–] sjpwarren@programming.dev 2 points 23 hours ago