So how long until anyone slops a Windows 7 or Windows 10 open source stand-in replacement?
>>110044317It's probably harder because it actually has to run on metal eventually.
>Windows but even worse and even slowernobody wants this. there would be a million jeetsloppers endless tinkering with this shit so much it would be a living hell
>>110044317someone need to get windows 8.1 startmenu back by backporting windows 8.1 RT to 8.1 desktop because it has a startmenu.
>someone does slop Win 7/8/10>slopped well enough to have even R-E'd the invasive telemetry (that's still functional)
jarvis, finish reactOS
yesterday you asked this about Windows 2000.let me guess, tomorrow it'll be about Vista or 95?
>>110044317I'd guess a year maybe two until you have a real polished option rather than a very nice looking 20% functional one.
>>110044796>universal modern windows core>you can switch the whole desktop ez no ricingplease do send at me the tokens saar
>>110044317React OS. Catch up buddy
>>110044819Switching desktops is ricing.
>>110044317you've described linux mint without realizing it
>b-b-b-b-but linux????????????????every fucking timeno, I will NOT use linuxnot NOW, not EVERseethe tranny, don't @me
>>110045085(rent) free software
>>110044317We should rather try to keep Windows 7 alive by helping projects like VxKex than wasting time trying to replace it altogether.
>>110044317What do people even like about Windows?The underlying system architecture is a heap of ancient legacy cruft with zero inherent security (shoehorned in later in ways that everyone hates and doesn't even work) and the interface has been a messy patchwork of competing design philosophies since 98.Seriously, name one thing good about it that doesn't have to do with nostalgia.
It's called XFCE and has been around for 30 years.
>>110044317I don't think you quite grasp the complexity of an operating system, let alone one with as much legacy support and code as windows has. It's orders of magnitude more complicated than a console game from 2002.
>>110044317Never. Operating systems are almost impossible to verify and debug. You can't make a slop OS, it would be too unstable.
>>110045262Windows has issues, but there is nothing else that is better. Linux for example is an obsolete 1970s mainframe OS which does not even have a proper user interface.
>>110045262Yeah it’s pretty much just>legacy supportOn Windows (for the most part) you can put on a Win32 program and it will run. It just werks. But really.And it was especially true on the olden days, which is also why people are pining for those versions. XP SP2? It would run anything. You could trust.So the analog today would really just be an OS that runs shit and doesn’t get in the way in any way. Modern Windows gets in the way. Modern Linux (unfortunately) still needs a lot of tweaking to run shit. And MacOS straight up just doesn’t run most software. So yeah. Those were the days.
>>110045262The fact that you can run more than a web browser and a fetch program on it.For the 10^12th time, computers are tools, not toys.
>>110045262>Seriously, name one thing good about itThere's no point, you already have your mind made up about it
>>110046528This is the correct answer.Don't ever entertain freetards, they're just a stupid cult that mindlessly vomits the same eight lines from their "holy texts".You could replace every single one with a simple batch file, and absolutely nobody would notice the difference.
>>110044317That's just called KDE.
>>110044640>>110044943>>110045055>>110045423>>110048200>uhm but that's just [second grade half-assed alternative]???why are they like this
>>110048268uhh just use LTSC babby and debloat it
>>110048200KDE is a desktop environment that looks a little like windows, not a complete OS by itself.
>>110045423I use this. Could be better but I'll take it over the other options that exist.
>>110045085That's fine. I'll use it for you. I love Linux and I am married straight white me.
