thunderbong
15 hours ago
From the thread [0] -
> This was more of a fun proof of concept rather than something usable. Virtually nothing can run due to critical missing files such as common dialog boxes and common controls.
[0]: https://x.com/XenoPanther/status/1983579460906487835?t=7jLSz...
happymellon
14 hours ago
If it can't run Windows 7 software, is it really Windows 7?
bhaney
13 hours ago
A question that will truly haunt philosophers for centuries to come
BobbyTables2
10 hours ago
If one replaces a few EXEs and DLLs at a time, at what point does it become Windows 11 ?
silisili
7 hours ago
When it starts spamming you ads from the taskbar...
devsda
4 hours ago
If that's the stop point, they'll only end up with Windows 8 and miss out on Recall.
actionfromafar
10 hours ago
When you need to buy new hardware to boot it.
abcdump
9 hours ago
Without new hardware, old hardware would eventually die.
When that old hardware dies, it would likely be replaced with a similar design rather than more evolved hardware. This would mean we’d have to develop for longevity. Developing for longevity, could mean that software would flourish. Software flourishing could include malware and inefficient software sold to fight malware. Therefore, it is more secure and efficient to continually evolve operating systems to require new hardware, to reduce longevity and the flourishing of software.
extraduder_ire
8 hours ago
Is the a 32 bit version of windows 11?
hulitu
3 hours ago
When it asks for a Microsoft account.
vpShane
8 hours ago
To Linux or not to Linux?
ronsor
14 hours ago
It almost certainly can run basic CLI apps linked only to kernel32.dll
znpy
14 hours ago
If this was a linux container, it would be a base image.
I wonder if this could be used to cobble together some duct-tape windows-7-based firecrackers vm thing.
zokier
12 hours ago
Windows containers are a thing, and MS has "Nano Server" base image.
Back in the day, MS did even release Nano Server as a standalone OS, from what I gather it was generally <500MB. Pretty decent for a Windows you could actually run applications on.
esseph
12 hours ago
> Windows containers
Are people using these in production? I assume so, with libvirt handling them on k8s for a vmware transition option.
tecleandor
11 hours ago
Although I don't manage those, I've seen them at work. Running on EKS Windows nodes, for dotnet and SQL Server loads.
nikanj
12 hours ago
Yes, if by people you include Azure in-house engineering teams
actionfromafar
10 hours ago
I will allow it, once.
nxobject
10 hours ago
Or perhaps applications that just need input and a framebuffer?
larodi
14 hours ago
Is a working top notch OS and you can do a lot with this bare minimum actually.
znpy
14 hours ago
Yes. If you compile just enough linux kernel to just boot and launch a statically compiled init, it’s still linux.
Similarly, this is still windows 7.
ZiiS
14 hours ago
Linux is a kernel, Windows is an OS; I don't think the same limits apply. [A static init dose not a Distro make]
bragr
13 hours ago
The post you are replying separately mentioned both the "linux kernel" and "linux" so the "Linux is a kernel" pedantry feels misplaced here.
Besides this old debate is pretty silly because I doubt anyone could propose (and get a majority of us to agree on) a formal definition of an operating system that would allow us to unambiguously say "that's an OS competent", "that's an OS", and "that's just software that ships with the OS" across a suite of OS's.
happymellon
13 hours ago
Disagree.
"Windows 7" brings a lot of connotations, including the ability to run Windows 7 software. Without that what makes it different to Windows XP?
bragr
13 hours ago
>"Windows 7" brings a lot of connotations
Sure but are those connotation consistent across people (this thread would tend to say no)? If not, that is essentially the core of my argument that nobody agrees on what "OS" means.
ZiiS
12 hours ago
Both can be true: a majority of people agree that the is a difference between a 69MB boot and Windows 7; whilst no two people agreeing exactly where to draw that line.
BobbyTables2
10 hours ago
Ah, good ol’ Windows Theseus
exe34
13 hours ago
windows xp can run software for windows xp.
ryao
8 hours ago
If you install the right software, Windows XP reportedly can run most Windows 7 software too:
https://github.com/shorthorn-project/One-Core-API-Binaries
That adds various NT 6 APIs and even compatibility modes for various newer versions of Windows up to Windows 11. At a glance, it appears to have support for Vulkan, Direct3D 10 and Direct3D 11 through software rendering, with the option of using WineD3D to get hardware accelerated Direct3D 10 and 11. I assume old WineD3D-PBA binaries run very nicely on that.
Interestingly, the developer suggests that installing graphics drivers from newer versions of Windows might be possible at some point, which I assume would provide native hardware acceleration for newer graphics APIs and support for recent graphics cards:
> WDDM is not impossible, only very hard. Currently initializes and the subsystem runs, but every driver fails to communicate with it's internal hardware due 2000/XP/2003 doesn't have support for MSI/MSI-X interrupt, required to WDDM drivers works;
https://github.com/shorthorn-project/One-Core-API-Binaries/i...
happymellon
8 hours ago
Why? If Windows 7 doesnt require the ability to run Windows 7 software to be classed as Windows 7, does XP need to be able to run XP software?
exe34
2 hours ago
Requirement and ability are different things.
itopaloglu83
12 hours ago
Unrelated. Maybe that’s why 69MB of Windows 7 cannot do much, while Linux can run multiple appliances. I’m purposely being sinister here for the fun of it.
chasil
11 hours ago
From what I have seen in System V init, I definitely needed a dose of a better init.
znpy
14 hours ago
You should tak a look at busybox
zepolen
11 hours ago
Windows 7 couldn't run Windows 7 software either.
ulfw
an hour ago
I have just releaser the 0MB version of DOS 5.0. It can't run anything as it's zero bytes but hey...
netsharc
11 hours ago
> common dialog boxes and common controls.
Ah, makes me reminisce installing Office 6.0 on Windows 3.1 and getting "3D" dialogs, from ctl3d.dll
This post has screenshots of the dialogs: http://www.win3x.org/win3board/viewtopic.php?t=14706