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...
If it can't run Windows 7 software, is it really Windows 7?
A question that will truly haunt philosophers for centuries to come
If one replaces a few EXEs and DLLs at a time, at what point does it become Windows 11 ?
When it starts spamming you ads from the taskbar...
If that's the stop point, they'll only end up with Windows 8 and miss out on Recall.
When you need to buy new hardware to boot it.
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.
It becomes The Windows of Theseus.
Is the a 32 bit version of windows 11?
When it asks for a Microsoft account.
Which it did first time I think vista?
To Linux or not to Linux?
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.
Linux is a kernel, Windows is an OS; I don't think the same limits apply. [A static init dose not a Distro make]
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.
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?
>"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.
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.
Ah, good ol’ Windows Theseus
windows xp can run software for windows xp.
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...
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?
Requirement and ability are different things.
You should tak a look at busybox
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.
From what I have seen in System V init, I definitely needed a dose of a better init.
It almost certainly can run basic CLI apps linked only to kernel32.dll
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.
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.
Oh Nano Server, that's a blast from the past.
I worked on porting certain Software Defined Networking product to Windows platform, for use with Hyper-V. Nano Server was new and we tried to target it as one of the options, especially since it was implied to be recommended way to deploy Hyper-V hosts. And yes, IIRC it took less than 500MB, but it couldn't run most windows applications (for example, GUI was missing).
So much was stripped out that at one point I ended up with reverse-engineered Windows Update packaging (unfortunately lost my notes) because the oldest form of Windows Installer, the one used with INF files for drivers, could not be used fully - specifically, we could not run any kind of action in our own DLL when initializing the drivers. And messing with the right registry keys was fraught with peril.
Do not recall all issues, but essentially we were trying to create a package that could be applied with DISM.EXE onto Nano Server image.
> Windows containers
Are people using these in production? I assume so, with libvirt handling them on k8s for a vmware transition option.
Although I don't manage those, I've seen them at work. Running on EKS Windows nodes, for dotnet and SQL Server loads.
Yes, if by people you include Azure in-house engineering teams
I will allow it, once.
Or perhaps applications that just need input and a framebuffer?
Is a working top notch OS and you can do a lot with this bare minimum actually.
Windows 7 couldn't run Windows 7 software either.
> 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
I have just releaser the 0MB version of DOS 5.0. It can't run anything as it's zero bytes but hey...