> 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...
I wonder if this could be used to cobble together some duct-tape windows-7-based firecrackers vm thing.
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.
Are people using these in production? I assume so, with libvirt handling them on k8s for a vmware transition option.
Similarly, this is still windows 7.
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.
"Windows 7" brings a lot of connotations, including the ability to run Windows 7 software. Without that what makes it different to Windows XP?
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.
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
Okay fine. They have a lot of services and that would be hard. I'll be happy with ec2, S3, and the other core services.
Or perhaps that won't be necessary because certain enterprise customers will insist on local accounts and it will be easier for pirates to just tap into that install path? One way or another, if/when local accounts go away I hope there's some option to work around it.
I want Linux software, instead.
(I'm old enough to have once had a "better Windows than Windows" experience, with OS/2 Warp -- ~30 years ago. It was a very nice system that completely failed to thrive, with many back then blaming its quite good Windows compatibility for that failure.)
There's also projects that modify a system less deeply, like Sophia Script.
These days the default windows install is so garbage that I have little issue running semi-open source customizations like these.
Squares? Pigeon holes? Cookie jars?
Oh I remember VMs pods and containers
DISM.exe /Online /Cleanup-image /RestorehealthMeanwhile Tiny7, Tiny10, Tiny11 entered the chatroom..
And though they are 10x+ bigger in size, they are still barebones Windows OS (without all the clutter that Micro$oft tends to overload on Windows releases these days; I am looking at you Mr.Copilot) that work well for most use cases.
I personally used Tiny11 to set up my home PC, it is compact and usable.
They'd annoy me if I didn't feel so bad for them. They're the types who will lament on their death bed that they didn't allow themselves to do more things for enjoyment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuLinux
Also, it looks revived:
You could even make your own, starting with the file manager from Windows 3.1 and some files from a Windows 95 CD (the installer for 95 ran a stripped down 3.1)
op00to•4h ago
0xd3af•4h ago