BenoitRen

You must like s***. Which bloat? Cairo is not bloat. Currently, they have to maintain three different librairies to get Gecko to render on the major platforms. GDI for Windows, and whatever they use for Linux and Mac OS X. With Cairo, they'll have to maintain just one library to get Gecko to render on all platforms. Easier, less time-consuming, and makes for less code, so it's actually less bloat. As an added bonus, it allows for better rendering. Gecko passes the Acid 2 test since early December on trunk! I'm sure we wouldn't be complaining about how Cairo seems to bloat Gecko if it didn't make Mozilla drop Win9x support.

There's more out there than Firefox using Gecko, dammit! I use SeaMonkey, and am a fan of K-Meleon. So what? Difficult works too. No one said this was going to be easy.

I wonder, how do the ReactOS people do it? If I would do it, I'd decompile kernel32.dll, and then make my own code based on how it works.

Yes, most of it, thank you very much. What's missing is what's inside the IE_x.CAB files.

He's not our friend, but fair is fair. He explained why he posted several times in a row (I had to do it too since yesterday). There's a quote maximum on each post, which I've counted to be 10. If you want more quotes, you have to make a new post.

Anyone? Please?

Needed for multimedia support. I'll grant you that. However, what you mentioned is a third-party tool, and it would be possible on Win9x too. Of course I did. Though maybe XPE didn't exist at that time... Only truly badly-coded applications harm the OS. Yes, all applications have bugs, but most don't harm the OS. And decrease performance... Another myth... I was under the impression that it's also needed for network shares.

Again, why bother with that when you can just ghost a hard drive that already has all the drivers? Hah! If only it was that easy... Yes and no. For one, it doesn't prevent you from using badly-coded applications. All this nonsense is really a laugh. Thousands of people migrating to XP, noticing that M$ removed all of DOS, and then people make all sorts of utilities to get it all back.

Then ScanDisk runs and fixes whatever is broken, which is hardly ever significant stuff. Then it's a bad driver. Duh. Oh please. I'll lose just that one date. What a disaster... Again, ScanDisk does the job. By reverse-engineering, which on something as important as the file system, is not perfect. The actual inner workings aren't known, and things could break before you know it. Yet I haven't had any problems in 8 years that ScanDisk couldn't fix. Not in a thread that asks for the PROs, because CONs are off-topic. Irrelevant. That doesn't disprove that games belong on consoles. You're bypassing what the actual comparison is about, which is OS performance, not driver performance. So the drivers have to be the same. Don't claim that XP is more performant when you're talking about your shiny drivers. Software should come with good settings. I shouldn't have to turn off all the bloat, it should come without it! Defaults are important! Bad excuse. There are no 'hidden' Win9x processes. They are all needed. Only 7 on my system at the moment that are not applications.

I don't get the point. How are you open-sourcing Windows (the OS) by substituting applications (which are not part of the OS strictly speaking) with open-source ones?

That's a feature created to make crashes efficient. Your system shouldn't crash to begin with. And if you claim XP is nearly uncrashable, it's pointless.Most people also seem to forget that NTFS is a proprietary file system, its implementation known only to M$ as a trade secret, while FAT is a partially patented file system whose inner workings have been documented all over. With NTFS, you need M$ to read your files, it partially owns them. With FAT32, I own my files and have full control over them. Only the data currently being processed, which on my computer is only the browser cache. Indeed, why use Win9x, NOT why NOT to use it. Games belong on consoles. And if you really need your Oblivion fix on the PCs, you can run it with an older 32 MB graphics card while still looking awesome. Great, a large boot CD-ROM, when a tiny DOS environment works just fine on Win9x. Marketing at work, M$ needing to sell their newer product. Moving on. Yet another reason to not use XP: it's bloated! Doesn't beat ghosting. Those newer drivers come with newer graphics cards. I tried that before. Never again, it's a mess. Booting to DOS is much better and easier.

I disagree. Part of open-sourcing Win9x is open-sourcing drivers.

But for other people Windows 95 was the first M$ OS they loved. Especially if they don't want integrated IE.

Unless you update it. Then we need to make drivers of higher quality.

Off. It's plain text after all. Notepad: appears instantly Wordpad: 3 seconds Keep in mind that I'm on a Pentium II 233 Mhz PC here. Try selecting exactly the letters you want when there are slashes or full stops nearby. You have to see it for yourself.

Please don't call it that, as it's not an official Mozilla product. It's just SeaMonkey.

When I open plain text files with Wordpad, I don't get a horizontal scrollbar. Plus it loads slower, and has a funky mouse selection method.

Anybody else think it's odd that he's being accused of stealing something that's free?

Not if you update it. What the hell do you think the GNU/Linux community does?

It's playing an MP3 and it's still taking up so much space? Bah!

ZZZOOM! What's that? It's the sound of my point flying past your head, and you missed it!

There's no point in getting more RAM for your computer just so you can install a newer OS when the current one works fine. Clearly XP does not run well on older computers.

Then you should be shot, as it's just another shell for IE, the most horrible browser in existence.

I thought Win9x already supported this as long as it was a proper win32 application. No, please don't insert that s*** into Win9x! It only leads to headaches and more complexity.

How's that a problem? The source is freely available. Not true. First, an OS is not truly dead as long as enough people still use it. Like the people here. Second, 98 already works, what the programmers are doing here is improving support for certain things, and NO, they are not stacking, wrapping, glueing, or doing anything else of that sort. They decompile code and fix as needed. If it was free, and the usage instructions were the same, I might consider it. However, Linux is a different OS. There's a learning curve. And who in their right mind replaces something that works just fine already? It's pointless. He was not saying it was a hog. The opposite, actually. I have to say that KDE and Gnome were designed for newer systems, though, and thus are hogs on older computers. Our Pentium II 350 Mhz Linux box runs much better since I installed XFCE4 on it to use instead of Gnome.